The effect of a miscalculation could be more devastating than we can imagine.
In 1960, Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani president Ayub Khan signed the Indus Waters Treaty, an agreement on the shared use of the outflow of the Indus River system. In the six decades since, despite several all-out wars between the two sides, the treaty has continued to operate. That continuity is a reminder of the contradictions inherent to a relationship born of a painful and violent divorce in 1947.
The tensions came to the fore on 26 February when a terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir 12 days prior, which India suspects was sponsored by Pakistan, led to an Indian air raid on Pakistani territory, and the subsequent capture of an Indian air force pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman, who was later released on 1 March. For now, both Pakistani president Imran Khan and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi appear to have concluded that de-escalation is the wisest policy, even if Modi’s pre-election anti-Pakistan rhetoric continues to curdle his voters’ blood.
Yet the current tensions have emerged as Asia’s regional order changes. During the Kargil War of 1999 – the last occasion when Indian and Pakistani troops met in open conflict in Kashmir – the US was still the world’s only true superpower, while China under Jiang Zemin was focused on economic growth rather than geopolitics. Two decades later, American power in Asia has waned under Barack Obama and Donald Trump, while China’s has risen, highlighting a long-standing and uncomfortable reality: the Indo-Pacific region (a term now used for the huge stretch of Asia between Pakistan and Indonesia) has few institutions that bring it together in any overarching framework, and it is unlikely to develop one.
Europe is dominated by the EU and Nato, and has dealt with post-conflict and reconstruction issues through institutions such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In Asia, there is an alphabet soup of forums and organisations across the region (Saarc, Apec and Asean to name but three), yet so far, they have failed to create a genuine, deep transnational network to manage conflicts or deepen economic and political relationships.
