Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

Dynamics of Balance of Power in South Asia:

Implications for Regional Peace
Rizwan Naseer
Musarat Amin

ABSTRACT: South Asia is geopolitically and geo strategically important due to unique
location. Starting from Russia to Down China, India and Pakistan are four nuclear powers. One
shares border with the other nuclear actor. Security is very important in this nuclear armed belt.
Any event can lead India-Pakistan to the brink of nuclear war. If the Balance of Power is
maintained in the region it may create an environment of mutual deterrence. As cold war
between US and USSR remained a cold war. Dynamics of balance of power are very important
in South Asia. Whenever the Balance of power of the region got disturbed there happened a war
between Pakistan and India. China as a biggest stake holder in Asia plays a role in maintenance
of Balance of power in the region.

Theoretical framework:
This World is anarchic. All the states are sovereign actors and there is no central government in
International society of states. Every state struggles to maximize its power in the anarchical
global system. If States do not acquire power they can become subservient to other powerful
states and will lose their security and prosperity. Anarchical structure thus compels states to
increase their power, because security and physical survival cannot be divorced from power
maximization. As a result, the competition for power becomes a natural state of affair in
international politics1. States, especially small states, often cannot achieve security on their own.
So they have to depend on powerful states for attaining a balance of power against a powerful
enemy. The term balance of power refers to the general concept of one or more states power
being used to Balance that of another state or group of states2. Threatened states could also adopt
the internal balancing strategy of building up arms, that is, to obtain countervailing capabilities
and thereby attempt to balance the rising powers military strength. The key means by which

PhD Scholar Institute of International Studies, University of Jilin, Changchun, Peoples Republic of China.
PhD Scholar Institute of International Studies, University of Jilin, Changchun, Peoples Republic of China.

Paul, T.V, Writz J. James & Fortman Michael.( 2004 ).Balance of power; Theory and practice in twenty first
century(edited). Stand ford University Press, California. p4.
2
Joshua, S. Goldstein. (2005). International Relations ( Sixth edition). Pearson Education Asia Limited and Peking
University Press, Beijing.p77

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

states balance one another are by building up arms through internal production or by
procurement from outside sources, and by reaching military alliances. By contrast, theorists
suggest that peace is generally preserved when an equilibrium of power exists among
great powers. Power parity among states prevents war because no actor can expect victory3.The
balance of power system strongly affirms to the norms and principles of Westphalia sovereignty;
that is, sovereign states have a legitimate right to exist, regardless of their size and power
capabilities, and that the equilibrium in power is essential to prevent a lawless situation from
emerging4. In case of South Asia, when India detonated its first nuclear device, resultantly the
balance of power was disturbed between both states (Pakistan and India). This nuclear
superiority endangered Pakistan to the great extent and pushed Pakistan to kick off its own
nuclear plant to restore the balance of power in the region, essential for peace and stability of
South Asia. China and Pakistan have played the balancing game rather than bandwagoning to
secure their respective sovereignties. Balancing is alignment against the threatening power rather
than the most powerful one; while bandwagoning is alignment with dominant power, either to
appease it or get some profit from it.5
In the regions of the world, it is the rising power of a region or regional coalition that causes
problems. When one actor or a coalition of actors gains too much military power within a region,
that actor or coalition may undertake aggressive and predatory behavior toward neighboring
states. To counteract such a danger, coalitions of regional states can form balances with or
without the association of extra-regional great-power states. The other method for balancing a
rising regional power is to acquire or modernize weapons internally that could balance the
capabilities of a neighbor who has or is about to obtain a military advantage through its
own

innovation

or through procurement of arms from abroad. The objective of regional

balancing is to generate a stable distribution of power with the aim of preventing war6.Its really
noticeable in the history of sub-continent whenever both the states(India-Pakistan)reached parity
status, no war has been reported since then but mere exchange of verbal threats. This power
parity in South Asia compelled both the states to engage in peace process. Some Scholars of
3

Writz, op.cit.,p4.
Liska, George. (1999). Resurrecting a Discipline: Enduring Scholarship for Evolving World Politics. Lexington
Books, Lanham. Maryland, p17.
5
http://pweb.jps.net/gangale/opsa/ir/Allaiance_Theory.htm
6
Writz , op.cit., p7.
4

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

Hegemonic stability theory believe that war results from equality in power whereas the
dominance of the hegemonic power works as a necessary condition for peace preservation.7In
counter argument to Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST), it can be said that US emerged as a sole
Superpower in the World and practiced its hegemony across Globe without restraint but could
not bring peace. It is the US herself who oftentimes violated principles of International law and
attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq on various pretexts. During cold war era, there existed a
quasi-Balance of power between two global powers (USA and USSR). World was divided into
two camps, the capitalist and communist. Both powers concluded alliance pacts for strengthening
their position the whole wide world. Alliance formation is always driven by mutual interests.US
reached Alliance with Western Europe and anti-communist bloc NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organizations) and USSR gathered support from communist regimes and concluded Warsaw
pact. There triggered a race to make alliances world wide.US sponsored SEATO and CENTO
alliance pacts to keep communist threat away from Asia. US objective behind signing treatise
was the containment of communism while Pakistan feared Soviet threat and its alignment with
India. In short cold war between both the global powers remained a cold war and couldnt
aggravate to a hot war due to balance of power and fear of mutually assured destruction.

Dynamics of Balance of power in South Asia:

For analyzing first conflict between India and Pakistan we can see the aftermath of first Kashmir
war. Because of about balance between both states neither won nor lost the war. Nascent states
were having limited resources to afford any bigger and prolonged conflict. The first war between
India and Pakistan broke out in October 1947 and lasted in December 1948. Kashmir, ruled by a
Hindu Maharaja was strategically located between India and Pakistan. Muslim population
constituted major portion of population. Sikhs and Hindus made up the other major ethnicities
though they were a minority compared to the Muslim population. British policy held that the
various princely states would have to accede to either Pakistan or India based on geographic
location and on demographics. While the final status of many of the states was easily concluded,
Kashmir and two other states presented special problems. Though required to choose between
the India and Pakistan the Maharaja was unable to decide which state to join. Tensions between
Pakistan and the government of Kashmir grew as the Maharaja's indecision frustrated Pakistan
7

Gilpin, Robert. (2001) .Global Political Economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton. p9395

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

and pro-Pakistani factions within Kashmir. Hostilities began in early October 1947 when a tribal
rebellion broke out in Poonch in southwest Kashmir. In the spring of 1948, the Indian side
mounted another offensive to retake some of the ground that it had lost. The fighting from the
spring through December 1948 was widespread as Pakistani forces conducted operations in both
the north and the south. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war and Pakistan was
able to acquire roughly two-fifths of Kashmir which it established as Azad (Liberated)
Kashmir.8.This war proved indecisive regarding resolution of Kashmir issue. But both the states,
almost with similar power capability didnt allow conflict to escalate into full scale war. Pakistan
was in quest of its security from external aggression. Cold war rivalry and race for making
alliances globally was the order of the day between US and USSR (Union of Soviet socialist
Republic).Thats why Pakistans early leadership chose western bloc for seeking desired
security. Pakistan's relations with the United States developed against the backdrop of the Cold
War. Pakistan's strategic geographic position made it a valuable partner in Western alliance
systems to contain the spread of communism. On May 19, 1954 Pakistan and United states
concluded mutual defense assistance agreement and ushered in an era of special relationship. For
over twelve years United States provided Pakistan with considerable military and economic
assistance. Misunderstanding started propping up between both states in 1959 and got worse
after 1962 Sino-Indian war. Pakistan allowed American military bases in Peshawar in 1959 for
the purpose of intelligence and surveillance over Soviet territory. Soviet Union shot down an
American spy plane U-2 which took off from Pakistan (Peshawar) .This U-2 incident brought
Pakistan in direct confrontation with USSR. A diplomatic row flared up between two countries.
The U-2 aircraft incident indeed created security hazards for Pakistan. There was a time when
Pakistan was described as the most allied ally of United States. Ayub Khan amid his visit to
Washington addressed congress that Pakistan was the only country in continent where the forces
of the United States could land any moment for the defense of the free world. Especially
during U2 incident, when United States prevaricated with ambiguous statements, Pakistan
openly admitted that the plane took off from Pakistans areas and Pakistan being an allied state
had the right to offer US its lands for surveillance.9Sino-Indian conflict 1962 remained
significant in the region regarding Sino-USSR relations.. Again I would like to draw your

8
9

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1947.htm
Bhutto, Z.A. (1969). The Myth of Independence. Oxford University Press,London.p.2

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

attention to bipolar world. China being communist had informal alliance with USSR but later
Sino-USSR rift debilitated this alliance and turned to hostility during 1962 war. Pakistan had
joined Western bloc by signing SEATO (South East Asian Treaty Organization) and CENTO
(Central Treaty Organization), military alliances sponsored by US. India symbolically did not
join either bloc. As diplomatic relations between India and the Soviet Union had established on
April 13, 194710.USSR extended its support to Indian policy of non alignment, aiming at
restraining US influence in Afro-Asian region. USSR supported India in United Nations Security
Council on almost every issue, the position on Goa or on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. SinoSoviet rift antagonized USSR towards China. USSR overtly supported India against China
during war of 1962, economically and militarily. USSR dispatched massive cache of arms to
support India. The First delivery of Soviet weapons reached India during Sino-Indian border
conflict of 1962.Soviet Union also emphasized on heavy industry and military production in
India. According to an Estimate, total amount of Russian military aid to India from 1960-2000
is.worth$35 billion military equipment11.On the other hand US too affirmed Indian side against
China, because of the old rivalry with China during Korean War. US also pushed heavy military
aid to India against China (communist). However, after India's border conflict with China huge
cache of arms were given and sold to India for the explicit purpose of defense against China." In
addition, parts of several ammunition and arms factories were shipped to India before the 1965
embargo. According to the terms of assistance this equipment was to be used only against the
Chinese and a huge U.S. military mission was installed in New Delhi to inspect the disposition of
American aid.12But India used that weaponry later against Pakistan during 1965 war.
This regional politics can be easily analyzed under the proverb, Enemy of my enemy is my
friend13This proverb fits best to the situation of Sub continent during 1960s when US and USSR
both supported India against China and later 1965 during Indo-Pakistan war China supported
Pakistan against India. This huge cache of arms supplies from both global powers empowered
India, underestimating Chinese power and went to war in 1962.Soviet Union, USA, France and
other states were providing India with arms against China and later against Pakistan in 1965 war.
The reason to oppose Pakistan by USSR was simply to join Western (anti-communist) bloc.
10

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=52
Ibid
12
Stephen P. Cohen, US weapons and South Asia: A policy analysis,(1976) Pascific affairs,vol49,No1, p52-53
13
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend/297233.html
11

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

They not only supported India militarily but diplomatically at United Nations forum. Nkrumah,
then Ghana's President, raised voice of Britains military assistance to India and made a public
protest against Britain's supply of arms to India during the 1962 war with China14.Pakistan,
a US ally at early phase, couldnt develop friendly relationship with Moscow. During the conflict
of 1965 with India, the big states, USSR, France, and Britain sent military aid to India. On the
part of Pakistan the most substantial U.S. military aid program was that in Pakistan, between
I954 and 1965(after signing security pacts SEATO,CENTO) In that period Pakistan received
about $630 million in grant military assistance for weapons, and some $55 million worth of
equipment purchased on a cash or concessional basis.15Though India was not US ally against
Soviet expansion, it collected huge sums of economic and military aid from US, USSR, UK,
Germany, France Czechoslovakia and other friendly states. Given below the table indicates the
amount of aid provided to India during 1965 to 1974.
TABLE: Arms Transferred to India from 1965 to 197416
Country
United States
Soviet Union
France
United Kingdom
Federal Republic of Germany
Czechoslovakia
Poland
All others
Total

Million Current US Dollars

41
1375
39
78
4
84
27
42
1690

SOURCE: U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 19661975 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976), Table V, p. 78.

In war of 1965, both rivals India and Pakistan fought war on Kashmir issue, but this war couldnt
prove a decisive war and failed to settle issue. Another more important factor in regional politics
in particular and global politics in general, was Chinese nuclear tests 1964.This nuclear test made
China a very strong nuclear power in Indias neighborhood. Other anti China powers supported

14

Hussain T. Karki, Sino-Indian relations,(Sep18,1971) Economic and Political weekly, Volume 6, No38 ,p2017.
Stephen P. Cohen(1976)p50
16
Menon Raja, India and Soviet Union: a new stage of relations? (July1978), Asian Survey, Volume18,no7. p740.
15

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

India in gaining nuclear status at the earliest. This led to Indian successful nuclear explosion in
1974.
China has been playing an active role to maintain a balance of power between India and Pakistan
by supporting Pakistan economically and militarily. China and Pakistan consolidated their
alliance through strategic engagement. China supplied Pakistan huge military hardware in order
to strengthen Pakistan and enabling it to cope with any external aggression. A stronger Pakistan
meant a stronger Chinese defense against any threat from India. China was keen in Pakistan to
make a route to Middle East, because of Pakistans unique strategic position. Its imperative
while pursuing strategic interest, to be sure that the allys powers resources are out of adversarys
reach.17These were the common interests that strengthened Sino-Pakistan entente. The internal
and external policies in both countries gave an upward push to their mutual friendly relations.
The scope of mutual interest was so wide in nature that even leadership and regime changes in
both countries did not affect this entente18.Indian might having domination on Pakistans defense
capabilities during the year 1965 compelled India to practice this superior military might on
Pakistan. India triggered war in Rann of Kutch area on the entire western border. When the
skirmishes held in Kashmir on 27 August, China sent a note of condemnation to India and
claimed that India had breached peace along the China-Sikkim border by violating the border on
22,23 and 24 july1965.The note also enunciated The Chinese Government must warn India that
if it does not immediately stop such acts of aggression it must bear full responsibility of the
consequences that may arise there from19.With the outbreak of September war between India and
Pakistan, first in Kashmir then spread to their international border, China extended all possible
political help for Pakistan. China condemned the Indian aggression and supported Pakistans
strategy of hitting back for its self-defense20.Beijing was sure that the Indian ambition was to
dominate the region, as she turned down Chinas offer to resolve border dispute peacefully.
Chinese leadership was aware of it that India was an aggressor who played the game with
support of United States and Soviet Union. It meant that China was trying to create a balance of
17

Glenn H Snyder. The Security dilemma in Alliance Politics,( 1984) World Politics, Vol.36,issue4.p472.
The Chinas Cultural Revolution and Deng Xiaopings coming into power affected Chinas relations with some
countries but with Pakistan. Similarly political turbulence in Pakistan, for example, the breakup of East Pakistan and
changing in regimes (democratic to military-democratic) didnt cast any negative impact on its relations with.
Vertzberger, Yaacov. (1983).The enduring entente: Sino-Pakistan Relations, 1960-1980. Praeger Publishers, New
York.p10
19
Beijing Review, Vol.8, No26, 3September1965:p8.
20
Survey of China mainland press,No3472,13 September 1965:p37-38
18

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

power between India and Pakistan. As India already had taken massive military aid from Soviet
Union, United States and other big powers. On September 7 the Beijing issued a statement
saying:
The Indian government probably believes that since it has the backing of the US imperialists
and modern revisionists it can bully its neighbors, defy public opinion and do whatever it likes,
this wont work. Aggression is aggression. Indias aggression against anyone of its neighbors
concerns all of its neighbors. Since the Indian government has taken step in committing
aggression against Pakistan, it cannot evade responsibility from the chain of consequences
arising there from. The Chinese government strongly condemned India for its criminal
aggression and expressed firm support for Pakistan.21By giving warning to India Chinas
objective was to save a weak Pakistan as compared to India, it pressurized Superpowers and
United Nations to stop war. Consequently the war ended by passing Security Council resolution
on 20th September which called for a ceasefire to begin on 22nd September and withdrawal of
troops to the lines held on August 5.China supported Pakistan in war to make a counterweight to
India. Beijing had calculations about India that if India is given free hand to exercise its military
might, will deteriorate regional peace and stability. This way United States and USSR could
easily endanger Sino-Pakistan strategic interests. During this war with India US didnt help
Pakistan for saving its national territorial integrity. Though Pakistan was an ally of US and
signatory of US sponsored security agreements SEATO and CENTO. The United Sates was
morally responsible for assisting Pakistan against Indian aggression.US did the opposite and
terminated supply of arms by imposing embargo on Sep8,1965.If the United States and other
members of SEATO and CENTO were not ready to help Pakistan in war of its survival, the
embargo was totally a punitive action against an allied state. In short both US sponsored
security pacts failed to provide genuine security to Pakistan, despite the meager military
assistance, it was considered that the disadvantages of alignment outweighed the
advantages.22Indian aggression didnt last here but reemerged again during 1971 East Pakistan
crisis. The war of 1971 was actually a civil war which culminated in separation of East Pakistan
after Indian military support for separate state of Bangladesh. There was long squabble between
the politicians about resources and authority of East and West Pakistan. The situation got more
21
22

Peking Review,10 September 1965:p6-7

Z.A Bhutto, Bhutto in 1969.Pakistan Forum,1972,2(7/8)p5-6

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

worse when the majority party Awami League backed by India, called for general strike in
March1971.The Pakistan military launched an operation on March in East Pakistan to restore
order. The situation got worst when Indian sponsored guerillas participated in war in month of
April. The Bangladeshi government denounced to come back to status quo. By November, the
intense clash between India and Pakistani forces started and thus escalated to full-scale war in
December. India gained full mastery of both air and water around Bangladesh, sealing the fate of
the four Pakistani divisions bottled up in East Bengal in space of 14 days.23China a time tested
friend of Pakistan had already been supporting Pakistan against India since first Kashmir war.
Now situation was very complex for China that Pakistans war with India over Bangladesh broke
out at the time when China was in middle of its Cultural Revolution and border clashes with
Soviet Union. China was closely watching the situation in the subcontinent. Over the overt
military assistance of India to Bengal province, China protested over Indian interference into
Pakistans domestic matters. Zhou En-lai sent a message of sympathy to Yahya khan stating full
support of Chinese government to Pakistan for safeguarding their territorial integrity. China
termed this Indian involvement an evil effort to split Pakistan.24During war of 1971 USSR
supported India against Pakistan due to unfriendly ties and especially recent diplomatic moves
by Pakistan to bridge between Sino-American ties. Thats why India and USSR had already
signed a bilateral treaty of friendship, peace and cooperation in August 1971. The balance of
power in subcontinent was like shown in figure below.
China-Pakistan

India-USSR

American factor was off to support either country because Pakistan was helping in Sino-US
rapprochement and US did not want to support Pakistan against India whom she had been
empowering against China. India conducted its 1st nuclear tests in 1974.This Indian nuclear test
once again disturbed the balance of power in favor of India. Indian nuclear arms granted
superiority India on Pakistans defense capability. Pakistan responded to Indias 1974 nuclear
test with redoubled efforts to keep the region nuclear-free, realizing that a nuclear race in South
Asia would have far-reaching consequences. It proposed a nuclear weapons-free zone in South

23

Sheldon, W. Simon,( 1973). China, the Soviet Union and the sub continental balance. Asian survey, ,13(7):648649
24
Ibid649.

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

Asia.25 It is well known fact that Pakistan started materializing its nuclear ambitions from mid1960s to onward. Pakistan decided to obtain nuclear devices by January 1972 within the span of
three weeks of its defeat in 1971 war. Bhutto, the successor of Yahya Khan had realized that the
acquisition of nukes and related delivery system was imperative to match with Indian
conventional superior technology and military capacities.26 Regional politics started taking new
shifts in the coming years ahead. Soviet Union being dominant power of the world wanted access
to warm waters of Indian Ocean. This way it could damage US strategic interests in South Asia.
For USSR there was no other option but Afghanistan to make her dream true. USSR being
expansionist power invaded in Afghanistan. This was a great threat to US interests in South
Asia.US needed Pakistan support for fighting this war against soviet expansionism.US fought
Afghan proxy war with the active help of Pakistan. In Pakistan dictatorial regime of General Zia
Ul Haq supported US stance for seeking legitimacy to his undemocratic government. US,
however, pushed massive military aid to Afghanistan through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. All the
military aid was used by Afghan Mujahidin against soviet threat. This phase remained peaceful
between India and Pakistan due to US military aid. This was the era when Jihad culture grew up
in Pakistan with US support. These mujahidin were fighting for American interests, who later
after disintegration of USSR turned against US. During this era no war occurred between
Pakistan and India rather normalization of relations took place (cricket diplomacy).Once again
the regional balance of power was achieved between Pakistan and India. Later when BJP
(Bharatiya Janta Party) came to power, she had promised to test nuclear devices. On 11th May
1998; Indian nuclear tests passed a wave of panic in the region. As India already held an
advantage in conventional weaponry, to restore the strategic balance to South Asia, Pakistan was
obliged to respond to Indias May 1998 nuclear blasts. Pakistans nuclear tests were undertaken
in self defense. By achieving mutual deterrence both the states served the interest of the peace
and stability in South Asia.27.This counter-move invited severe criticism from US and her allies
imposed an embargo on Pakistan, Both the nuclear armed states of South Asia have reached at a
stage where war is no more option for resolving perennial dispute over Kashmir. Suppose if New
Delhi goes to war with Islamabad, the war will be over Kashmir, not the existence of Pakistan.
25

Shamshad Ahmad, The Nuclear subcontinent: Bringing stability in South Asia, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78.no4.JulyAug1999,p123
26
J.N Dixit, (2002). India -Pakistan in war & Peace, London, Rout ledge.p332
27
Shamshad Ahmad Jul-Aug1999 p123

10

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

Western scholars often term South Asia nuclear flashpoint. Many Indians claim that the West
consistently and deliberately has promoted the idea of a nuclear flashpoint to get India and
Pakistan to establish a nuclear risk reduction regime concurrently with a sustained dialogue on
Kashmir and their non- proliferation agenda. The presence of nuclear weapons certainly makes
states exceedingly cautious; notable examples are China and Pakistan's post nuclear behavior.
The consequences of a nuclear war are too horrendous to contemplate. Policymakers in New
Delhi and Islamabad have a sound understanding of each other's potential, capabilities,
intentions, policies, and, more important, red lines, which they are careful not to cross. This
repeatedly has been demonstrated since the late 1980s. Despite the 1999 Kargil War and the
post-September 11 brinkmanship that illustrate the "stability-instability" paradox that nuclear
weapons have introduced to the equation in South Asia, proponents of nuclear deterrence in
Islamabad and New Delhi believe that nuclear deterrence is working to prevent war in the region.
They point to the fact that neither the 1999 Kargil conflict nor the post-September 11 military
standoff escalated beyond a limited conventional engagement due to the threat of nuclear war. So
the stability argument is based on the reasonable conclusion that nuclear weapons have served an
important purpose in the sense that India and Pakistan have not gone to an all-out war since
1971.24 Just as nuclear deterrence maintained stability between the United States and the USSR
during the cold war, so it can induce similar stabilizing effects in South Asia.28In short, Indian
and Pakistani policymakers and strategic analysts see nuclear weapons as essential to
maintaining state security and ensuring state survival. From their perspective, nuclear deterrence
prevents conventional wars, keeps peace, and brings warring parties to the negotiating table-the
Lahore (1999) and Agra (2001) summits are good examples.29 In Feb, 1999 prime Minister
Pakistan Muhammad Nawaz Sharif invited Indian Premier Atal Bihari Vajpayee to visit Pakistan
which resulted in Lahore declaration. They issued joint declaration committing both sides to a
peaceful resolution of all outstanding issues including Kashmir and decided to work for
conclusive measures in nuclear and conventional arms control and avoid risks of conflict.30An
easy conclusion can be drawn from the above discussed events and phases in the history of South
Asia that whenever strategic balance between Pakistan and India got disturbed, it resulted in any
28

Mohan Malik, The Stability of Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia: The Clash between State and Anti-state Actors,
Asian Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Fall, 2003),p184-185
29
Ibid p186
30
Shamshad Ahmad Jul-Aug1999 p124

11

Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 1, Jan 2011

armed conflict between both the rival states. While on the other sides Pakistan achieved a
pseudo-Balance of power between both states no conflict emerged but minor clashes and
exchange of mutual threats. Another glaring example of nuclear deterrence between both the
states is November26, 2008 Terrorist attacks on Indian soil by a militant organization which
claimed 163 lives and crippled Mumbai for three days. The world states feared another armed
conflict between both nuclear armed states. But Indias response to the event didnt escalate into
war and they didnt mobilize their military against Pakistan. This restraining act of Indian
government astonished other nations as well. But the former Indian army chief General Shankar
Roychowdhry bluntly stated that Pakistans threat of nuclear use deterred India from seriously
considering conventional military strikes.31 After achieving successful nuclear balance
tantamount to India no war happened between both states despite terror attack on Indian
parliament and Hotel Tajmahal, which India was suspecting of sponsored by Pakistan.

31

Pakistans Nuclear Weapons Deterred India Hindu, March 10, 2009.

12