The cost of winning a war VIEWPOINT

The town of Berwick-upon-Tweed lies on the border of Scotland and England. It changed hands many times in the Anglo-Scots wars. BuT (the acronym is irresistible) is now in England but Berwick Rangers FC plays in the Scottish league.

In a peace treaty signed between Scotland and England, it was described “of, but not within the Kingdom of England”. Hence, BuT had a semi-autonomous status for centuries. It used to be specifically mentioned in treaties and declarations made by the United Kingdom.

The semi-autonomous status was removed in the 18th century though BuT continued to be mentioned separately in many official documents. In 1854, the UK declared war on Russia. BuT was not mentioned separately in the subsequent peace treaty of 1856. Some historians claim, tongue-in-cheek, that BuT has been at war with Russia since 1854, although Mr Putin is probably unaware of this situation.

There are other much nastier, contemporary examples of nations that have been at war for long periods. Azerbaijan-Armenia have been at war since 1992. Every so often, there is a flare-up with border skirmishes. The issue is the enclave of NagornoKarabakh, an Armenian majority area in Azerbaijan. In the 1990s, an ethnic cleansing campaign drove Armenians out of Baku. Garry Kasparov (who is half-Armenian and Baku born-and-bred) chartered a plane to airlift Armenians out of Azerbaijan.

The successor states to the former Yugoslavia have similar problems. Croatia, Bosnia, Jugoslavija, Slovenia, Montenegro, etc., all have enclaves of ethnic minorities, and Bosnia in the 1990s saw some terrible examples of ethnic cleansing. Israel and its neighbours have also had contentious relationships since 1948, with multiple wars and no period of lasting peace.

The Indo-Pakistan relationship is therefore, paralleled by similar situations elsewhere. The sub-continental neighbours have been embroiled in an uninterrupted conflict since Partition. The fighting started in October 1947, and there have been formal wars in 1947-48, 1965, 1971 and 1999. There have been few periods of peace and certainly, no period of demilitarised borders.

The last 35-odd years have been characterised by sporadic attempts to evolve a less strained relationship in-between periods of loud sabre-rattling and one limited war. Pakistan has fostered separatist movements in the Punjab and Kashmir, and terrorists with Pakistani connections have hit various places in India. New Delhi has been accused of fostering separatists in Balochistan.

The two nations have maintained quasi-normal ties. They have played cricket and hockey together, set up cross-border bus and train services and hosted commercial “focus” groups and built stronger trade ties. India has gone so far as to give Pakistan MFN status though that has not been reciprocated.

Since none of the options have worked in terms of stopping terrorism, it may make sense to just stop trying to improve the relationship. There are other options. The really dangerous ones involve escalating to formal war, given nuclear weapons. There would also be a negative diplomatic consequence from reneging on the Indus Water Treaty.

But India could try to introduce an element of unpredictability by randomly making threats of sudden escalation. This would force both nations to stay in a constant state of eyeball-to-eyeball readiness with for example, border populations permanently evacuated. This would impose additional costs on both countries. India is better able to sustain such costs and over time, it might beggar Pakistan. This is how the US won the Cold War.

However, for such a strategy to be taken seriously, India would have to sharply increase defence budgets, make more forays across the LoC, ramp up the relationship with Afghanistan, hold aggressive war-games, etc. There would be a negative impact on the GDP, quite apart from the chance of something going wrong in terms of losing control of the escalation process.

Imposing such a state of constant red alert may help to build up nationalistic fervour that helps the BJP electorally. Oddly enough, it could also suit Pakistan’s leadership. It would give legitimacy to Pakistan’s deep state and help enrich its generals, even if the nation goes bankrupt. It would be an unusual example of win-win for the rulers of both countries, and of course, it would be lose-lose for ordinary citizens.