In 2003, a nuclear-armed India is no closer to solving the Kashmir issue than a non-nuclear India was in 1948. This is because the fundamental problem is a political one and not a military one.
Without intending to dwelve too deeply in a discussion of the quagmire that is Kashmir, there is no gainsaying the fact that even though political compulsions influence military decisions, military options also chart the political dynamic that unfolds in a region. In the absence of an Indian thermonuclear device, it's not clear whether the Kargil incursion would have ended as it did. Besides, the decision to discard the garb of nuclear ambiguity by India was not driven by the state of affairs in Kashmir, although it has affected how that dynamic unfolds. After all, it's not for some trivial reason that the Indians are presently in an advanced stage of discussions with the Americans about contributing significantly (in terms of personnel) to the creation of a "peace"keeping force in Iraq! :-)
Best, James
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
##########################################################################
# Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts #
# More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
