Pakistan and India Nuclear Standoff and Nuclear Politics of South Asia

"When a nuclear armed country fights to the death, it has consequences. That is why we have approached the United Nations and are
approaching every international forum urging them to act right now because this is a potential disaster which would go beyond the
Indian subcontinent." (PM IMRAN KHAN in an interview to Al-Jazeera)

India’s inability to prove its claims of bringing down a Pakistani plane and hitting terrorist targets in Balakot could have “some
deleterious political implications”, (Michael Kugelman; US analyst)

The escalation of tension between the two nuclear armed countries and the rise of Fascist government in India and most
importantly the continued violation of human rights in the Indian Occupied Kashmir all have the potential of bring the two
countries on the brink of a nuclear war.

Researchers warn India-Pakistan nuclear war could kill 100 million

The year is 2025 and militants have attacked India's parliament, killing most of its leaders. New Delhi retaliates by sending tanks
into Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK).

Fearing it will be overrun, Islamabad hits the invading forces with its battlefield nuclear weapons, triggering the deadliest conflict in
history — and catastrophic global cooling, with temperatures not seen since the last Ice Age.

This scenario was modelled by researchers in a new paper published on Wednesday, which envisaged more than 100 million immediate
deaths, followed by global mass starvation after megatons of thick black soot block out sunlight for up to a decade.

Mass Starvation

Based on their current populations and the urban centres that would be likely targeted, the researchers estimated up to 125 million could
be killed if both countries expended the bulk of their highest yield weapons.

Around 75-80 million people were killed in World War II.

This most extreme scenario would involve the use of 100 kiloton weapons, more than six times as powerful as the bombs dropped on
Hiroshima.

A single airburst from such a bomb could kill two million people and injure 1.5 million — but most of the deaths would occur from the
raging firestorms that followed the blast.

“India would suffer two to three times more fatalities and casualties than Pakistan because, in our scenario, Pakistan uses more weapons
than India and because India has a much larger population and more densely populated cities,”

But nuclear Armageddon would be only the beginning.

The research found that the firestorms could release 16 million to 36 million tonnes of soot (black carbon) into the upper atmosphere,
spreading around the world within weeks.

The soot in turn would absorb solar radiation, heating the air up and boosting the smoke's rise.

Sunlight reaching the Earth would decline 20 to 35 per cent, cooling the surface by 2 to 5 degrees Celsius and reducing precipitation by
15 to 30pc.

Worldwide food shortages would follow, with the effects persisting up to 10 years.
“I hope our work will make people realise you can't use nuclear weapons, they are weapons of mass genocide,”

Today, Kashmir has emerged as the bone of serious contention between two countries bristling with nuclear weapons. What was
dangerous about its Pulwama trigger is that it brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war. Since 1971, the two have never been as
close to a full-scale war as they were on the night of February 28.

Pakistan and India have fought four wars since 1947 that have seen a combined death toll of 22,600 and 50,000 wounded and maimed.
While reliable data on disappearances and civilian casualties is not available, at least 100,000 families have suffered direct human costs.
The last major troops mobilisation in South Asia in 2001-02 cost the two countries a combined $3 billion.5

Indian Warmongering
“It will not take more than seven to ten days to make Pakistan bite the dust".

(Narendra Modi)

“Indian army will move to claim AJK if it is given orders in this regard by the parliament.”

(Gen Munuj Mukun; Indian Army Chief)

OVER the past few years, there has been a steady, disturbing rhythm of war drums emanating from New Delhi. India’s top civil
and military leaders have been making irresponsible statements where Pakistan is concerned, publicly rattling sabres mainly for
domestic consumption — and vitiating the atmosphere in South Asia as a result.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi while speaking at a gathering made the arrogant boast that his country could defeat Pakistan in a
matter of days. Earlier, the Indian army chief had said that his troops could occupy Azad Kashmir if the Indian parliament asked them to
do so. His predecessor — who is currently serving as chief of defence staff — made equally toxic remarks regarding Pakistan. It would
be naive to assume that these are all coincidences; quite clearly, the Indian establishment has attained a threatening posture.

INDIAN HEGEMONY IN SOUTH ASIA HEGEMONY

“Hegemony is the political,
economic, or military
predominance or control of
“India must dominate or perish; perish it wont’ so dominate it must “ one state over others.

(Jawahar laal Nehru)

Countries that surround India, such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Burma are nowhere at par with India with regard to size and
population. India dominates the whole area geographically. She is the only country that shares a border or a coast line with all other six states while none of
them have common borders with each other. .

Nepal is particularly vulnerable to India due to its landlocked nature. Nepal’s geographical vulnerabilities have often impelled it to enter into treaties with
New Delhi. Yet Nepal has not refrained from acquiring alternatives for reaching the sea. It has tried to establish ties with other powers specifically China in
order to dilute its dependence on India. India has rewarded such efforts by Nepal with economic measures such as the economic blockade of 1989 and the
more recent 2015-16 blockade.

Bangladesh is a nation that is highly dependent on India. In fact, it may be asserted that India was the single greatest factor in the creation of Bangladesh
through its arming, training and instigating of the Mukti Bahini. However, soon after its secession, Bangladesh tried to formulate an independent foreign
policy. In response, India formed the Shanti Bahini to wage a guerilla war in the Chittagong Hill tract region against Dhaka like the Mukti Bahini before
them.

Sri Lanka, another major South Asian country has also had a tumultuous relationship with India. The Island nation is a stone’s throw from Southern India
and hosts a substantial Tamil population which also holds in a dominant position in India’s Tamil Nadu. Sri Lanka has followed a foreign policy largely
free of Indian influence; it has cooperated with different foreign powers such as the US and Israel.

Sri Lanka’s closeness to Islamabad was one major irritant to New Delhi, an instance being the provision of refueling facilities to the Pakistani military
during the 1971 war. India under Indira Gandhi tried to enact the Mukti Bahini success in Sri Lanka by arming local Tamil separatists; the results were
different armed Tamil outfits who in the end culminated into the organization known as the Tamil Tigers. Due to this, Sri Lanka was forced to enter into
the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 causing an Indian Peace-Keeping-Force (IPKF) to be stationed in Sri Lanka. However, the landing of an Indian military
force had an opposite reaction on Sri Lankan society. Anti-India sentiment rose both in the majority Sinhalese and ethnic Tamils which caused the Tamil
Tigers to turn against their makers. Indian atrocities on ethnic Tamils such as the 1989 Valvettiturai massacre and the Jaffna hospital massacre also
contributed to this. In 1989, the Indian government was forced to recall the IPKF but still India meddled in the Sri Lankan campaign against the Tamil
Tigers.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Pakistan to this day remains the most constant hindrance to total Indian hegemony in the Subcontinent. That is why most of India’s attention is diverted
towards Pakistan and it is now expending its energies in containing and subjugating Pakistan. This in turn has caused Pakistan to follow a path of Realism
in safeguarding its existence.

Historical Confrontations pushing the countries on the brink of a nuclear war