David Loyn:
Hello. Welcome to the BBC's interactive forum. I'm David Loyn. The eyes of the international community are on India and Pakistan as never before, the two countries appear to stand on the brink of the worst kind of war over the disputed territory of Kashmir. Tensions have been heightened since Pakistan test fired a missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads for the third time. Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has been in both capitals, he says the crisis has obvious implications for the world and hardly surprisingly we've had hundreds, no thousands, of e-mails from you interested in what we can say about the crisis.

No-one better to answer your questions than the BBC's former South Asia correspondent Mike Wooldridge, who's in Islamabad for the duration of the crisis and our long-term India correspondent, Satish Jacob, who we start with in Delhi.

Role of the international community

Satish firstly a couple of questions both from Britain: Michael McGlinchey in Barrow in Furness says: "What are the global implications of a South Asia nuclear conflict, what can world powers realistically do to stop it?" And Lee Knapton writes from Derby: "If large scale military action does occur when is this most likely to be?"

Satish Jacob:
Yes the implications for conflict between India and Pakistan, there is a real danger of this escalating into nuclear warfare and if that happens the catastrophe will be enormous. According to one estimate - somebody has given an estimate saying that if that happens at least 12 million people, both in India and Pakistan, will die.

David Loyn:
When could it happen?

Satish Jacob:
Well this is not the time. Realistically speaking, from a military point of view, this is far too hot for both India and Pakistan to have a traditional military conflict, then in about four weeks time monsoon will be breaking out in both India and Pakistan and you know very well, I'm sure, that people realise, that India and Pakistan, these are flat countries, nothing but plains, and monsoon rains are very heavy, it would be impossible for the tanks to be used in these fights. Also from the other angle neither India, at least India, will not be able to use their air force and their planes because the air bases in Pakistan have American and British troops and their planes. So I think India would be very mindful of that.

David Loyn:
So the weather gives a window of opportunity really for the international community. One to you Mike from Phiroz P. who's a doctor from Bombay in India, he says, a very simple question: "The whole of Kashmir was given to India by the then ruler, Pakistan attacked and occupied approximately a third of it and that's where it all began." Is he right or is he wrong?

Mike Wooldridge:
I think the problem with all of these disputes that have such a profound history to them is that it's almost impossible to identify the starting point. There certainly are some people who would agree with Phiroz there but you could also of course, and many in Pakistan will feel this, you could go back a little earlier than that to independence itself from Britain when many in Pakistan would have wished that Kashmir, as a Muslim majority state, would have joined Pakistan at that time, it didn't and certainly there were those who would feel that because it didn't that was what led to what Pakistani irregulars, initially anyway, launching their attack into the territory soon after that, the occupation and then the first of the conflicts.

But of course you could also say that if that wasn't necessarily the starting point what about the failure to put various United Nations resolutions into effect after that point, the failure to hold a referendum, a plebiscite in the territory, the failure of Pakistani troops to withdraw. You could bring it forward many more years - could you say that the start of the militancy at the end of the 1980s was really essentially the start of the problems that we're seeing today and the particular crisis at the moment? Whichever starting point you choose though quite clearly this is one of the world's most dangerous pieces of unfinished business.

David Loyn:
Satish a couple of questions to you about the role of the international community. Jack Straw, as I said, is in New Delhi at the moment. Khuram Khan writes from Islamabad: "Can international diplomacy resolve the issue, what can the UN do?" And Gagan from Guildford here in Britain says: "In order to avoid a nuclear war can't the security council impose some kind of sanctions and get them both to sign a 'No first' use deal?"

Satish Jacob:
Yes I will take the second question first. I think the security council can play a very big role, they can pass a resolution and restrain both the countries from taking any action. The first question about what role the international community can play, are playing, I would say that it's a great blessing for a lot of people in India and Pakistan that international leaders are taking such keen interest and it is because of their pressure that India has shown restraint and we don't have a war at the moment.

David Loyn:
I've had a bit of a sense that some Indian politicians are a bit impatient of the international community and they want to get on with it in their own way?

Satish Jacob:
I think, yes, there are some but there are in a minority, I mean you can call them, what we call them, as hawks, but they don't enjoy a majority. A lot of people in the government and the opposition parties and even Indian intellectuals are overwhelmingly against any war with Pakistan. You will be surprised to know how many Indians wish to have peaceful relations with Pakistan and this is true actually.

Return to the top of the page

David Loyn:
Two questions for you Satish, Peter Stone writes from Cambridge in Britain: "In the event of a conflict is it likely to remain localised in Kashmir or could it spread all the way down the border and is the Indian government likely to make incursions right into Pakistani territory to strike at alleged terrorist training camps?" And Rohit writes from India: "What would India's policy be in the case of all out war, would they take it all the way down the border?"

Satish Jacob:
Well there are three actually, three different questions. Number one question is whether it will be confined to one area vis-à-vis Kashmir? I don't think so. The wars are never fought that way. I think it is bound to spill out in other areas and going to be a full fledged war between India and Pakistan. The question is that whether they will restrain themselves from using nuclear arms and if it is a traditional fight, even that will be damaging for both countries. Both countries are suffering from economic recession, they're both poor countries, a lot of unemployment and it's not going to stop them even then.

The third thing is that if India goes to war with Pakistan I have been told by military experts in India that they will go with a view of going deep inside Kashmir and their aim would be to take back what is known as Pakistan occupied Kashmir because the Indians feel that this is one area where all the camps are existing, where the training is given and which is used as a launching pad by the militants to cross into India and carry out these attacks. That would be the Indian's aim.

David Loyn:
This is very important - are you really saying that there are military strategists who are thinking not just of hitting training camps in, what we call, Pakistan administered Kashmir but actually retaking the territory that they lost in 1947?

Satish Jacob:
Well that is - yes that's what they talk about. It's been talked about in India for a very long time and specially now that we have a right wing party in power and this party's main aim has always been - it is in their manifesto - to finish once and for all the problem in Kashmir. And they think this is the only solution for that.

Return to the top of the page

David Loyn:
Mike, from your side, Arshad writes from London: "With India having more than three quarters of a million troops, we believe, on their side of the line of control in Kashmir and about half a million on the other side, surely there are enough troops to stop any militants getting across the line of control, they'd stop even an ant getting across, where's this infiltration coming from?" And Mabs also writes, the same sort of question: "How's it possible for so many militants to get across the line of control when there's so many soldiers guarding it?"

Mike Wooldridge:
Questions that are very often asked, I think, and of course it seems realistic. There is, first of all, though I think a dispute about the number of Indian troops that there are in Indian Kashmir, the figure of 700,000 plus is one you hear very often in Pakistan, you also hear it in Kashmir itself, I think that the Indian version of that would be that that is exaggerated - it could be half of that. Although of course those troops have been reinforced ever since December last year, since the attack on the Indian parliament and the assembly in Jamu. And we are talking about troops right down the international border as well as in the line of control.

But as for Indian Kashmir and stopping infiltration, the infiltration that India insists does happen still across the border, I think we also have to consider the geography of the region - it is still a long stretch, the line of control, even there and much of it is at very high altitude, going up to 16-17,000 feet, much of it is extremely formidable territory - formidable to guard, formidable to cross as well of course - covered by snow for much of the time, forested in other parts. And I think that that probably does explain how people - and I think it is certainly felt by those in the international community who watch these things that despite the Pakistani denials over the years that there has been such infiltration, arguable perhaps whether it is now stopping or stopped, as General Musharraf claims. The Indians of course do say that they've been successful in catching a good number of people but they also would say that a lot of others have crossed and they would say the proof of that is in that attacks have continued to take place.

Return to the top of the page

David Loyn:
And one more for you Mike from Viji Palaniappan, who's an Indian currently in America, he says: "Do you think President Musharraf is really willing to end support to Kashmiri terrorists?" We heard his speech again this week repeating really what he said in January. I mean despite a lot of international pressure if he does stop it what'll happen in Pakistan, what are the pressures on him from the ISI - Pakistani intelligence - and indeed from the Islamic militant extremists - the jihadis in Pakistan?

Mike Wooldridge:
An absolutely critical issue at the moment of course because if Indian is to cross the line of control, to cross the all out border, if there is, in other words, to be a wider war than the low level conflict that happens at the moment that undoubtedly would be the Indian justification for it. I think what would be said, not just been said by General Musharraf, but by many others here in Pakistan is that they would want a distinction to be drawn between the Kashmir cause and terrorism.

Certainly General Musharraf is saying, and he would say, that he made this clear first in his landmark speech in January, he repeated it in that address the other night that he will not allow Pakistan to be used - Pakistani territory - to be used as a launch pad for terrorist actions in India or indeed elsewhere. But he certainly is not backing away at all, at least in public, from the Kashmiri cause, if anything he stood more firmly by it the other day. Now there's a feeling that that could be not least for domestic consumption because he doesn't want to, at this point, make declarations that could prove to be more divisive because of the trouble he already ran into with his about turn, if you like, on Afghanistan at the end of last year, his agreement to cooperate with the Americans, he wants his nation rallying around him at this time in the face of what he considers to be a threat from Pakistan. He also knows that the issue of Kashmir, the cause, is deep in the heart of many Pakistanis.

Now that said, even if that's an explanation for their attempt here in Pakistan to draw a distinction between terrorism, if you like, acts mainly on civilians and support, moral support, for the Kashmir cause. There is this crucial issue too of whether he would face difficulties and undoubtedly he would within this country, not just from the ISI, he's made changes at the top there to try to minimise those difficulties but of course, particularly, that potentially bigger backlash than there's been already from the jihadis, from the militant groups within this country. That is a crucial break and whatever he may want to do in practice that's behind the scenes if not necessarily in public at this point to try to reduce the tension on the border.

Return to the top of the page

David Loyn:
Thanks Mike. Back to India, Satish a question we've had from Pakistan on their government's role, what about the Indian government's role in Kashmir? Abdulfatah writes from Bangladesh: "What about the role of international observers? Can't international observers go in and sort it out and monitor elections which seem to be fair internationally?"

Satish Jacob:
Well United Nations have had observers in Kashmir for the last almost 50 years. They have their problems, they have their limitations, they can just be there, they cannot take any political actions to prevent anything there, they can only report back to their bosses in the United Nations. I think what would be a practical way is that if Indian government agrees and if they are sincere in their contentions to see that the elections in Kashmir are fair they ought to allow some international organisations, maybe organisations like some human rights organisations to be there to see that the elections are carried out in a fair way. But the problem is that India is a democracy, say the parliament here, there's an election commission, if they say that alright we will invite people from outside they would be undermining their own institutions.

Return to the top of the page

David Loyn:
Thank you very much Satish Jacob from India. Back to you Mike Wooldridge in Pakistan. About America - what part has America played in Pakistan's nuclear weapons build up, would they back Pakistan against India now?

Mike Wooldridge:
Experts here say that the United States has played no part at all in the nuclear weapons build up and indeed when in the early 1970s Pakistan decided to go for the nuclear option that's precisely the point, and obviously the Americans discovered that that was happening, that's precisely the point at which the Americans, still in large measure an ally of Pakistan, at that point started creating hurdles and indeed it was shortly after that the embargoes came in from the United States on anything on the transfer of any kind of technology that could have contributed to a nuclear weapons programme. But of course Pakistan will always say that this is an indigenously developed programme, much of the international community would insist that China, through its defence cooperation agreement with Pakistan, has been very helpful in the build up of this nuclear weapons programme.

There is just one other element in this if you go back a little bit further - back in the fifties it's certainly true that the Americans had a programme called Atoms for Peace, this was about the idea of developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, that was the intention, for energy and so on and they were certainly keen that that sort of skill and information should be available to be used particularly for energy purposes across the world. There were Pakistani scientists in America at that time who may well have been, if you like, caught with enthusiasm for developing that programme. So whether any of the skills which were intended to be for the peaceful use of nuclear energy were then used by those same scientists in developing a nuclear weapons programme that's quite another matter. But certainly the insistence here would be, and I'm sure the Americans would say this as well, that they had no part at all in the development of nuclear weaponisation as such.

David Loyn:
Well thank you very much Mike Wooldridge from Islamabad and that's all from this BBC interactive forum, thank you for your questions.

Return to the top of the page