At the Edge of the Precipice
By Dr Akmal Hussain
BA, MA (Cambridge); DPhil (Sussex)
Distinguished Professor and Dean
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Information Technology University (ITU)
Lahore, Pakistan

So, the die is cast for another confrontation between two nuclear armed neighbors. The way it unfolds, could determine whether the peoples of this sub-continent live or die.
It began with a suicide bombing in Pulwama of a military convoy resulting in scores of casualties. The Indian government quickly held Pakistan responsible. There is a wave of communal frenzy against Kashmiri Muslims and war hysteria generated by the BJP and much of their media. On the crest of this tide of anger, Prime Minister Modi gave instructions to India's armed forces to launch a revenge attack against Pakistan. The decisions regarding the " time, place and type" of attack were devolved to the military. On the other side, Pakistan's Prime Minister after consulting the National Security Committee authorized the armed forces to respond "decisively and comprehensively" to any aggression by India. Having taken the decision in principle, he ensured a quick reaction, by permitting the military to retaliate immediately to an Indian attack, without seeking any further orders from him.
Subsequently the Director General ISPR, General Asif Ghafoor, made clear at a press conference that the military stands ready and able to defend the country with a "full spectrum response". The "full spectrum" in this context means both conventional and nuclear weapons. He subtly warned India that the military had a dual deterrent: even at the conventional level they had the capability to mount "superior force ratios" in every theater where Indian forces choose to do battle. The psychological aspect of war, an important dimension of deterrence, is the strength of will of a country's soldiers. This will, was conveyed by Major General Ghafoor's demeanor: there was a dignity, a poise, a quiet resolve. The words reinforced the message: a sense of fierce determination to defend Pakistan to "...the last bullet, the last breath, the last drop of blood".
In contrast to the emotionally charged speech by Prime Minister Modi, threatening war, Prime Minister Imran Khan's television address was a calm, well-reasoned rebuttal of the Indian allegations ending with a call for peace. He offered to act against non-state groups if evidence was provided that they were engaged in cross border terrorism. At the same time PM Khan firmly declared that if India attacked, Pakistan would unhesitatingly retaliate. To show that Pakistan was prepared to go the extra mile for peace, the government soon announced a ban on Jamat-ut-Dawa and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation, the two organizations that India has long held were involved in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. There are also indications that following the government's decision to expedite the earlier National Action Plan against proscribed terror groups, action may be taken against the JeM, in Pakistan, the group that India alleges, operating from Pakistan, is responsible for Pulwama.
Underlying the passion for revenge that PM Modi and his BJP have ignited, is a cool calculation by the BJP that this could turn the political tide in their favor in the forthcoming general elections. So, the unprecedented overtures of peace by Pakistan are likely to be spurned by India as the momentum for a limited war builds up. Yet at a purely rational level, a "limited" military strike by India, beyond the merely symbolic, is likely to be counterproductive. For example, a deep penetration, land-based intrusion across the LoC in Kashmir would be unlikely to make any headway, because of the heavy snows in the area at this time of the year. An Air Force operation firing over the horizon conventional missiles from Indian airspace to destroy military posts on the Pakistani side, risks matching retaliation by the PAF. Similarly, a surface-to-surface missile attack on installations would elicit a similar response from Pakistan. Finally, a major land-based thrust in Southern Punjab or Sind, to capture a city in Pakistan is fraught with the danger of escalation spiraling out of control into a nuclear war. There are no winners in this game.
At a rational level there are no gains, either military or political through a military adventure. But then the decisions of individuals and political leaderships are sometimes overdetermined by emotion. In this case PM Modi has whipped up war hysteria to such a pitch that he could start a war without knowing how to end it.
Any modern war once begun enters uncharted terrain. Here probability estimates based on past data can breakdown in the face of uncertainty. The unexpected can happen: in a situation where there is no room for mistakes, decisions based on imperfect information could cause disasters. Furthermore, in a crisis situation, psychological pressure of unpredictable magnitude could induce irrational or even suicidal decisions. So those who are stoking the fires at present, may cause a conflagration that crosses the nuclear threshold into a global catastrophe.
Three elements of such a catastrophe come to mind. First, there is a clear and present danger that India may launch a revenge strike against Pakistan. The problem with such attacks is that they cannot be so precisely calibrated as to keep them below the adversary's threshold of provocation. In case that threshold is inadvertently crossed, the adversary's retaliation may be seen as disproportionate and so both sides get onto the escalation ladder.
Second a major ground-based military thrust at some point in the escalation process could be undertaken by India. There is lack of territorial depth in Pakistan and current economic constraints to sustaining an extended conventional war. So Indian forces on Pakistan territory God forbid, could lead to the use of tactical nuclear weapons which could trigger a strategic nuclear exchange. Nuclear war between India and Pakistan is not just Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It could take the rest of the world in its wake.
Third some of the leading atmospheric scientists like Brian Toon and his colleagues at the University of Colorado, Boulder, have estimated that the smoke produced by a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, would take about two weeks to cover the entire earth. The smoke would rise to between 20 to 50 miles into the stratosphere where there is no rain. The sunlight would be shut out for months and temperatures would fall precipitously. The International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War group have estimated that this nuclear winter would result in as much as 40 percent reduction in the yield per acre of grain crops. In the resultant food shortages, as many as two billion people, about one-third of humanity, would die of starvation. Toon, et al. predict that those who survive would be subject to serious diseases resulting from the estimated loss of as much as 50 percent of the earth's ozone layer; both the terrestrial and aquatic Eco systems would suffer devastating damage creating unimaginable misery for human and animal life on this planet.
With nothing short of human survival at stake, this is time for the international community to act urgently to defuse the situation. This is also time for the leadership of India and Pakistan to draw upon the well springs of their civilization that have shaped their deeper consciousness of human solidarity. They need to bring to bear at this critical juncture, the message of love, beauty and truth that resonates in their literature, in the mountains, the valleys, the rivers and the deserts of this magnificent land and its people. We need to nurture in concert, the great potential of our people, we need to join hands across borders to overcome poverty, ignorance and disease. Not destroy ourselves and all that we have stood for across millennia.