Order Code IB93097
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
India-U.S. Relations
Updated January 29, 2003
K. Alan Kronstadt
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Context of the Relationship
U.S. and Congressional Interest
Regional Rivalries with Pakistan and China
Political Setting
National Elections and Prospects for Political Stability
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
The Congress Party
India-U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues
Security Issues
Dispute Over Kashmir
Nuclear Weapons and Missile Proliferation
U.S.-India Security Cooperation
Regional Dissidence and Human Rights
Gujarat
Human Rights
India’s Economy and U.S. Concerns
U.S. Aid
Narcotics
CHRONOLOGY

---

IB93097
01-29-03
India-U.S. Relations
SUMMARY
Although the end of the cold war freed
dence and separatist movements in Kashmir,
India-U.S. relations from the constraints of
Punjab, and India’s Northeast region. Strife in
global bipolarity, New Delhi-Washington
these areas has resulted in the deaths of tens of
relations continued for a decade to be affected
thousands of civilians, militants, and security
by the burden of history, most notably the
forces over the past decade. Communalism
longstanding India-Pakistan rivalry. Recent
has also been a matter of concern, with spring
years, however, have witnessed a sea change
2002 rioting in the Gujarat state resulting in
in bilateral relations, with more positive inter-
more than 1,000, mostly Muslim, deaths.
actions becoming the norm. India’s swift
International human rights groups, as well as
offer of full support for U.S.-led anti-terrorism
Congress and the U.S. State Department, have
operations after the September 2001 attacks
criticized India for perceived human rights
on the United States is widely viewed as
abuses by its security forces in these regions.
reflective of such change.
The United States has been supportive of
Continuing U.S. concern in South Asia
India’s efforts to transform its formerly
focuses especially on the historic and ongoing
quasi-socialist economy through fiscal reform
tensions between nuclear-armed India and
and market opening. Beginning in 1991, India
Pakistan, tensions rooted in unfinished busi-
has been taking steps to reduce inflation and
ness from the 1947 Partition, and competing
the budget deficit, privatize state-owned
claims to the former princely state of Kashmir.
industries, reduce tariffs and industrial licens-
The United States also seeks to prevent the
ing controls, and institute incentives to attract
regional proliferation of nuclear weapons and
foreign trade and investment. Successive
ballistic missiles. Both India and Pakistan
coalition governments have kept India on a
have so far resisted U.S. and international
general path of economic reform and market
pressure to sign the major international
opening, though there continues to be U.S.
nonproliferation treaties.
concern that such movement has been slow
and inconsistent.
In May 1998, India conducted a series of
unannounced nuclear tests that evoked inter-
The current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-
national condemnation. Pakistan reported
led coalition government is headed by Prime
conducting its own nuclear tests less than
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. The coalition
three weeks later. As a result of these tests,
has been in power since October 1999 na-
President Clinton imposed wide-ranging
tional elections decisively ended the historic
sanctions on both countries, as mandated
dominance of the Nehru-Gandhi-led Congress
under the Arms Export Control Act. Many of
Party. The BJP has close ties to Hindu-
these sanctions gradually were lifted through
nationalist groups in India and has suffered
Congress-Executive branch cooperation from
some recent electoral setbacks at the state
1998 to 2000. The remaining nuclear sanc-
level, most recently in Jammu and Kashmir
tions on India and Pakistan were removed by
where the BJP-allied National Conference was
President Bush on September 22, 2001.
ousted. Recent state elections in Gujarat
resulted in a decisive win for the BJP and are
Congress also has been concerned with
viewed as being a key gauge of the national
human rights issues related to regional dissi-
coalition government’s continued strength.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB93097
01-29-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Top Indian government officials have continued to issue hostile warnings and threats
directed at neighboring Pakistan, a country they hold responsible for separatist violence in
Kashmir and that Deputy Prime Minster Advani called the “epicenter of terrorism.” In
January, India announced the establishment of a Nuclear Command Authority and conducted
three ballistic missile tests over an 11-day period. Defense Minister Fernandes promised to
“erase Pakistan from the world map” if it attacked India with nuclear weapons. Most
recently, a diplomatic row resulted in the expulsion of embassy staff from both capitals. The
United States continues to urge a renewal of bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan
aimed at resolving their mutual differences.
Top U.S. government officials have praised India as “stalwart member” of the U.S.-led
anti-terror coalition, and state that the Bush Administration is determined to “move the U.S.-
India relationship to new heights.” In December, the United States and India signed an
accord calling for the non-surrender of nationals to any international criminal court without
prior consent. In January, U.S. and Indian officials met in New Delhi to discuss missile
defense issues. A recent press report indicates that the two countries will hold unprecedented
advanced air combat exercises in 2003.
In January, India signed a “landmark” defense cooperation protocol with Russia setting
up several joint ventures for developing sophisticated weapons platforms. More recently,
India and Iran launched a “strategic partnership” with the signing of the New Delhi
Declaration and 7 other substantive agreements. The two countries reportedly plan to hold
joint military exercises in coming months.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Context of the Relationship
U.S. and Congressional Interest
In the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, India took the
immediate and unprecedented step of offering to the United States full cooperation and the
use of India’s bases for counterterrorism operations. The offer reflected the sea change that
has occurred in recent years in the U.S.-India relationship, which for decades was mired in
the politics of the Cold War. The marked improvement of relations that began in the latter
months of the Clinton Administration was accelerated after a November 2001 meeting
between President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee at the White House, when the
two leaders agreed to greatly expand U.S.-India cooperation on a wide range of issues,
including counterterrorism, regional security, space and scientific collaboration, civilian
nuclear safety, and broadened economic ties. Notable progress has come in the area of
security cooperation, with an increasingly strong focus on counterterrorism, joint military
exercises, and arms sales. In December 2001, the U.S. Defense Policy Group met in New
Delhi for the first time since India’s 1998 nuclear tests and outlined a defense partnership
CRS-1

---

IB93097
01-29-03
based on regular and high-level policy dialogue. In July 2002, the fifth and most recent
meeting of the U.S.-India Joint Working Group on Counterterrorism was held in
Washington, D.C.
U.S. and congressional interests in India cover a wide spectrum of issues, ranging from
the militarized dispute with Pakistan and weapons proliferation to concerns about human
rights and trade and investment opportunities. In the 1990s, India-U.S. relations were
particularly affected by the demise of the Soviet Union – India’s main trading partner and
most reliable source of economic assistance and military equipment – and New Delhi’s
resulting need to diversify its international relationships; India’s adoption of sweeping
economic policy reforms, beginning in 1991; and a deepening bitterness between India and
Pakistan over Kashmir, along with India’s preoccupation with China as a potential long-term
strategic threat.
With the fading of cold war constraints, the United States and India began exploring the
possibilities for a more normalized relationship between the world’s two largest democracies.
A visit to the United States by Indian PM Narasimha Rao in 1994 marked the onset of
significantly improved U.S.-India relations. Rao addressed a joint session of Congress and
met with President Clinton. Although discussions were held on nuclear nonproliferation,
human rights, and other issues, the main focus of the visit was rapidly expanding U.S.-India
economic relations. Throughout the 1990s, however, regional rivalries, separatist tendencies,
and sectarian tensions continued to divert India’s attention and resources from economic and
social development. Fallout from these unresolved problems – particularly nuclear
proliferation and human rights issues – presented serious irritants in bilateral relations.
President Clinton’s 2000 visit to South Asia seemed a major U.S. initiative to improve
cooperation with India in the areas of economic ties, regional stability, nuclear proliferation
concerns, security and counterterrorism, environmental protection, clean energy production,
and disease control. President Clinton and Indian PM Vajpayee agreed to institutionalize
dialogue between the two countries through a range of high-level exchanges. The United
States and India also agreed to establish working groups on trade, clean energy and the
environment, and science and technology. Agreements also were signed on environmental
protection, clean energy production, and combating global warming. President Clinton lifted
sanctions on some small U.S. assistance programs, and cooperation agreements were signed
on efforts to combat polio, tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS, as well as the trafficking
of women and children in South Asia.
During his subsequent visit to the United States later in 2000, Vajpayee addressed a
joint session of Congress and was received for a state dinner at the White House. During the
visit, U.S. officials announced $900 million in Export-Import Bank financing to help Indian
businesses purchase U.S. goods and services. U.S. companies also signed agreements to
construct three large power projects in India, valued at $6 billion, as part of increased energy
cooperation between the two countries. On September 15, 2000, President Clinton and
Vajpayee signed a joint statement agreeing to cooperate on arms control, terrorism, and
AIDS. When Vajpayee again visited the United States in November 2001, he came at a time
of heightened tensions in South Asia, but also a time of warming India-U.S. relations despite
U.S.-Pakistan cooperation during the war in Afghanistan.
CRS-2

---

IB93097
01-29-03
Regional Rivalries with Pakistan and China
Three wars – in1947-48, 1965, and 1971 – and a constant state of military preparedness
on both sides of the border have marked the half-century of bitter rivalry between India and
Pakistan. The acrimonious nature of the partition of British India in 1947 and the continuing
dispute over Kashmir remain major sources of interstate tension and violence. Despite the
existence of widespread poverty across South Asia, both India and Pakistan have built large
defense establishments – including nuclear weapons capability and ballistic missile programs
– at the cost of economic and social development.
The Kashmir problem itself is rooted in claims by both countries to the former princely
state, now divided by a military line of control (LOC) into the Indian state of Jammu and
Kashmir and Pakistan-controlled Azad (Free) Kashmir. India blames Pakistan for supporting
“cross-border terrorism” and a separatist rebellion in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley
that has claimed up to 60,000 lives since 1989. Pakistan admits only to lending moral and
political support to what it calls “freedom fighters” operating mostly in and near the valley
region around the city of Srinagar. Normal relations between New Delhi were severed in
December 2001 after a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament was blamed on Pakistan-
supported Islamic militants. Though the two countries apparently have since ended a tense,
10-month military standoff at their shared border, there has been no diplomatic dialogue
between India and Pakistan since a summit meeting in the city of Agra in July 2001 failed
to produce any movement toward a settlement of the bilateral dispute.
India and China fought a brief but intense border war in 1962, and China has since
occupied a large swath of territory still claimed by India. Although Sino-Indian relations
have warmed in recent years, the two countries have yet to reach a final boundary agreement.
During the last visit to China by an Indian leader in September 1993, then-Indian Prime
Minister Rao signed an agreement to reduce troops and maintain peace along the line of
actual control (LAC) that divides the two countries’ forces (along with pacts on trade,
environmental, and cultural cooperation). Periodic working group meetings aimed at
reaching a final settlement continue; the 14th of these was held in November 2002. In
January 2002, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji became the first Chinese premier to visit India
in 11 years. The Indian Prime Minister is slated to visit Beijing in 2003.
Adding to New Delhi’s sense of insecurity are suspicions regarding China’s long-term
nuclear weapons capabilities and strategic intentions in South Asia. In fact, a strategic
orientation focused on China reportedly has affected the course and scope of New Delhi’s
own nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Beijing’s long-time military and
economic support for Pakistan – support that is widely believed to have included WMD-
related transfers – is a major and ongoing source of friction; expressed Chinese support for
Pakistan’s Kashmir position adds to the discomfort of Indian leaders. Despite these issues,
high-level exchanges between New Delhi and Beijing regularly include statements from
officials on both sides that there exists “no fundamental conflict of interest” between the
world’s two most populous countries.
Political Setting
National Elections and Prospects for Political Stability. India’s most recent
national elections in October 1999 brought to power a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led
CRS-3

---

IB93097
01-29-03
coalition government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. This outcome decisively ended the
historic dominance of the Nehru-Gandhi-led Congress Party, which now sits in opposition
at the national level (though its members lead numerous state governments). This is
Vajpayee’s third tenure as Prime Minister – his previous governments lasted 13 days in 1996
and 13 months in 1998-99.
As a nation-state, India presents a vast mosaic of hundreds of different ethnic groups,
religious sects, and social castes (there are 18 official languages). Until the last decade or
so, many of these groups found representation within the diversity of the Congress Party,
which ruled India for 45 of its 55 years since independence in 1947. Factors in the decline
of support for the Congress included neglect of its grassroots political organizations by the
leadership, a perceived lack of responsiveness to such major constituent groups as Muslims
and lower castes, the rise of regional parties and issue-based parties such as the BJP, and
allegations of widespread corruption involving a number of party leaders. At the same time,
there has been a shift in power from upper caste Indians to the far more numerous lower
caste Indians, many of whom have switched their allegiance from Congress and smaller
national parties to oftentimes influential regional and caste-based parties.
December 2002 elections in the state of Gujarat were viewed by many as a key gauge
of continued public support for the BJP. Gujarat was the site of horrific communal conflict
earlier in 2002 when the torching of a train car filled with pro-Hindu activists killed 58 in
Ghodra and led to widespread rioting that killed more than 1,000, mostly Muslims, along
with the displacement of thousands more. Gujarat Chief Minister and BJP leader Narendra
Modi called for early elections – in an effort to take advantage of the polarized political
setting, some say – and ran a campaign that emphasized a perceived Islamic/Pakistani threat
to the country’s and state’s Hindu majority. The BJP party was rewarded with an
unexpectedly decisive victory over the rival Congress Party. Many analysts predict that the
success in Gujarat of a strongly Hindu-nationalist political platform will be translated into
similarly strident tacks elsewhere in India, along with a more hardline stance from the BJP-
led coalition at the national level. The next national elections are scheduled to be held some
time in 2004, but 9 state elections are slated for 2003.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Riding a crest of rising Hindu nationalism, the
BJP increased its strength in Parliament from only two seats in 1984 to 119 seats in 1991 to
181 seats at present. In 1992-93, the party’s image was tarnished by its alleged complicity
in serious outbreaks of communal violence in which a mosque was destroyed at Ayodha and
2,500 people were killed in anti-Muslim rioting in Bombay and elsewhere. Some observers
view the BJP as the political arm of the extremist Hindu nationalist organization Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS or National Volunteer Force), allegedly responsible for the
incidents. Since then, the BJP has worked – with only limited success – to change its image
from right-wing Hindu fundamentalist to conservative, secular, and moderate, although
February 2002 riots in Gujarat hurt the party’s national and international credentials as a
secular and moderate organization.
Following the March 1998 elections, the BJP managed to cobble together a fragile, 13-
member National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition, headed by Vajpayee, and survive
a confidence vote. Factors that kept the BJP government in power for a year included
Vajpayee’s widespread personal popularity, early popular euphoria over India’s May 1998
nuclear tests, and widespread disenchantment with previous Congress-led governments.
CRS-4

---

IB93097
01-29-03
Vajpayee soon found himself caught in a continuing round of internal bickering and favor-
seeking by coalition members. Such distractions delayed efforts at focusing on more urgent
matters, including the economy. An April 1999 no-confidence vote was precipitated by the
withdrawal of support for the BJP government by its largest coalition partner, a regional
party based in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.
The BJP advocates “Hindutva,” or an India based on Hindu culture. Although the BJP
claims to accept all forms of belief and worship, it views Hindutva as key to nation-building.
Popular among upper caste groups, the party continues to be looked upon with suspicion by
lower caste Indians, India’s 140 million Muslims, and non-Hindi-speaking Hindus in
southern India, who together comprise a majority of India’s voters. The more controversial
long-term goals of the BJP reportedly include building a Hindu temple on the site of a 16th
century mosque in Ayodhya that was destroyed by Hindu mobs in 1992, establishing a
uniform code of law that would abolish special status for Muslims, and abolishing the special
status granted to Jammu and Kashmir state under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.
None of these stands are taken by the NDA 1999 election manifesto and likely would be
opposed by most NDA coalition members. The BJP leadership has sought to put these goals
on the back-burner, but current tensions – continuing conflict between India and Pakistan and
a flare-up of Hindu-Muslim communal violence in the western state of Gujarat – have put
the party in an awkward position.
The Congress Party. The post-election weakness of the opposition is a major factor
in the BJP coalition government hopes for completing its 5-year term. With just 110
parliamentary seats, the Congress Party today is at its lowest national representation ever.
Observers attribute the party’s poor showing to a number of factors, including the perception
that current party leader Sonia Gandhi lacked the experience to lead the country, the failure
of Congress to make strong pre-election alliances (as had the BJP), and the splintering of
Congress in Maharashtra state.
Support for the Congress Party began to decline following the 1984 assassination of
then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (daughter of India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal
Nehru) and the 1991 assassination of her son, then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Sonia
Gandhi, Rajiv’s widow, refused to be drawn into active politics until the 1998 elections. She
has since made efforts to revitalize the organization by phasing out older leaders and
attracting more women and lower castes. In November 1998, signs of a resurgent Congress
Party were apparent in a series of state elections. By landslide margins, the Congress
defeated BJP governments in Rajasthan and Delhi and maintained its control of Madhya
Pradesh. However, the inability of the Congress to form a new government after the fall of
the BJP coalition in April 1999, along with defections led by Maharashtran politicians,
weakened the party in the parliamentary elections. The December 2002 elections in Gujarat
were a major defeat for Congress and marked a failure of the “soft Hindutva” position taken
by Gujarati party members in an effort to erode BJP support in the state.
CRS-5

---

IB93097
01-29-03
India-U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues
Security Issues
Dispute Over Kashmir. The Kashmir problem is rooted in claims by both India and
Pakistan to the former princely state, divided since 1948 by a military Line of Control (LOC)
separating the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-controlled Azad (Free)
Kashmir. Spurred by what were perceived as being rigged state elections that unfairly
favored pro-New Delhi candidates in 1989, an ongoing separatist war between Islamic
militants and their supporters and Indian security forces in the Indian-held Kashmir Valley
has claimed up to 60,000 lives. India blames Pakistan for fomenting the rebellion, as well
as supplying arms, training, and fighters. Pakistan claims only to provide diplomatic and
moral support to what it calls “freedom fighters” who resist Indian rule. The longstanding
U.S. position on Kashmir is that the whole of the former princely state is disputed territory,
and that the issue must be resolved through negotiations between India and Pakistan, taking
into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
A series of kidnapings and general strikes in the Kashmir Valley, beginning after the
controversial elections of 1989, led India to impose rule by the central government in 1990
and to send in troops to establish order. Following a number of incidents in which Indian
troops fired on demonstrators, Kashmiris flocked to support a proliferating number of
militant separatist groups. Some groups, such as the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front
(JKLF), continue to seek an independent or autonomous Kashmir. Other local groups,
including the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), seek union with Pakistan. In 1993, the All Parties
Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference was formed as an umbrella organization for groups opposed
to Indian rule in Kashmir. The Hurriyat membership of about 23 political and religious
groups includes the JKLF (now a political group) and Jamaat-e-Islami (the political wing of
the HM). The Hurriyat Conference, which states that it is committed to seeking dialogue
with the Indian government on a broad range of issues, proposes convening a tripartite
conference on Kashmir, including India, Pakistan, and representatives of the Kashmiri
people. Hurriyat leaders also have demanded Kashmiri representation at any talks between
India and Pakistan on Kashmir.
In 1995, the government of then-PM Rao began efforts to restart the political process
in Kashmir. May 1996 elections were held to fill Jammu and Kashmir’s six parliamentary
seats. Voter turnout in the state was about 40%, with some reports of voters being herded
to polling stations by security forces. The elections served as a rehearsal for state assembly
elections, which were held in September 1996. The National Conference (NC), the
longstanding establishment Kashmiri party led by Farooq Abdullah, won 57 of 87 seats, and
Abdullah became chief minister of the state. In April 1998, Jammu and Kashmir again took
part in national parliamentary elections. Pre-election violence and a boycott by the Hurriyat
kept voter turnout in the state at an estimated 35%-40%. Voter turnout in the state declined
even further in 1999 parliamentary elections.
In 2001 and 2002, a series of violent incidents worsened the region’s security climate
and brought India and Pakistan to the brink of full-scale war. In October 2001, Islamic
militants attacked the state assembly building in Srinagar, killing 38. In December 2001, a
brazen attack on the Indian Parliament complex in New Delhi left 14 dead, including the five
attackers. Indian government officials blamed Pakistan-based militant groups for both
CRS-6

---

IB93097
01-29-03
attacks and initiated a massive military mobilization that brought hundreds of thousands of
Indian troops to the border with Pakistan. In May 2002, in the midst of this armed
showdown, militants attacked an Indian army base in the Jammu town of Kaluchak, leaving
34 dead, many of them women and children. New Delhi leveled further accusations that
Islamabad was sponsoring Kashmiri terrorism and Indian leaders talked of making “pre-
emptive” military incursions against separatists’ training bases on Pakistani territory. Indian
PM Vajpayee told Indian troops to prepare for a “decisive war” against Pakistan so as to stop
“cross-border terrorism.” The situation was further exacerbated when moderate Kashmiri
separatist leader Abdul Ghani Lone – noted for seeking a nonviolent resolution to the dispute
– was assassinated at a political rally. (For a review of the Kashmir dispute, see CRS Report
RL31587, Kashmiri Separatists: Origins, Competing Ideologies, and Prospects for
Resolution of the Conflict.)
International pressure included numerous visits to the region by top U.S. diplomats and
led Pakistani President Musharraf to publically state that no infiltration was taking place at
the LOC. On receiving assurances from Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary of
Defense Armitage that Pakistan would terminate support for infiltration and dismantle
militant training camps, India began the slow process of reducing tensions with Pakistan.
In October 2002, after completion of state elections in Jammu and Kashmir, New Delhi
announced that a months-long process of redeploying troops to their peacetime barracks had
begun. Islamabad responded with a stand-down order of its own, although the Indian and
Pakistani armies continue to exchange sporadic small arms, mortar, and even artillery fire
along the LOC.
Indian Kashmir remains volatile. October 2002 elections to the state assembly resulted
in the ouster of the National Conference and the establishment of a coalition government of
the Congress Party and the People’s Democratic Party. While the seating of this new and
seemingly more moderate state government renewed hopes for peace in the troubled region,
continued and deadly separatist violence has dampened early optimism. The United States
welcomed the election process as a necessary first step toward the initiation of a meaningful
dialogue between India and Pakistan to peacefully resolve their dispute. Secretary of State
Powell has asserted that, “We are looking to both India and Pakistan to take steps that begin
to bring peace to the region and to ensure a better future for the Kashmiri people. The
problems with Kashmir cannot be resolved through violence, but only through a healthy
political process and a vibrant dialogue.” (See CRS Report RS21300, Elections in Kashmir.)
Nuclear Weapons and Missile Proliferation. U.S. policy analysts consider the
bilateral conflict between India and Pakistan as posing perhaps the most likely prospect for
the future use of nuclear weapons. In May 1998, India conducted a total of five underground
nuclear tests, breaking a self-imposed, 24-year moratorium on nuclear testing. Pakistan
followed, claiming six tests of its own by month’s end. The unannounced tests created a
global storm of criticism and represented a serious setback for decades of U.S. nuclear
nonproliferation efforts in South Asia. President Clinton immediately imposed economic
and military sanctions on both countries as mandated under Section 102 of the Arms Export
Control Act (AECA). Humanitarian assistance, food, or other agricultural commodities were
excepted from sanctions under the law.
India had conducted its first, and only, previous nuclear test in 1974, after which it
maintained ambiguity about the status of its nuclear program. Pakistan probably gained a
CRS-7

---

IB93097
01-29-03
nuclear weapons capability sometime in the 1980s. India is believed to have enough
plutonium for 25-100 nuclear warheads. Pakistan may have enough enriched uranium (and
a small amount of plutonium) for 25-50 warheads (although some reports suggest that
Pakistan may have an arsenal that is larger than India’s). Both countries have aircraft and
missiles capable of delivering the weapons, and both also continue to test ballistic missiles.
India’s short-range Prithvi missiles have been labeled “Pakistan-specific,” while many
analysts believe that its longer-range missile programs are oriented toward China (see CRS
Report RS21237, India and Pakistan Nuclear Weapons Status).
In August 1999, a quasi-governmental Indian body released a Draft Nuclear Doctrine
for India calling for a “minimum credible deterrent” (MCD) based upon a triad of delivery
systems and pledging that India will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. The
document has been neither accepted nor rejected by New Delhi. (Islamabad has made no
comparable public declaration, but it also seeks to maintain an MCD while rejecting a no-
first-use pledge.) In April 2002, the Indian Cabinet approved the establishment of a Strategic
Nuclear Command (SNC) that would control the country’s nuclear arsenal, and four months
later the Indian Defense Minister stated that “a nuclear doctrine is in place” and a command
and control structure is being developed. In January 2003, New Delhi announced creation
of a Nuclear Command Authority. In creating such an body, India appears to be taking the
next step toward operationalizing its nuclear weapons capability. (Pakistan created its own
Nuclear Command Authority in 2000.)
Proliferation in South Asia is conceived as being part of a chain of rivalries – India
seeking to balance against Chinese capabilities, and Pakistan seeking to gain an “equalizer”
against a larger and conventionally stronger India. New Delhi initiated its nuclear program
soon after its 1962 defeat in a short border war with China and China’s first nuclear test in
1964. Pakistan’s nuclear program likely was prompted by India’s 1974 nuclear test and by
Pakistan’s defeat by India in the 1971 war and consequent loss of East Pakistan, now
independent Bangladesh. (For details, see CRS Report RL30623, Nuclear Weapons and
Ballistic Missile Proliferation in India and Pakistan.)
U.S. Nonproliferation Efforts. During the 1990s, the United States security focus
in South Asia sought to minimize damage to the nonproliferation regime, prevent escalation
of an arms and/or missile race, and promote Indo-Pakistani bilateral dialogue. In light of
these goals, the Clinton Administration set forward five key “benchmarks” for India and
Pakistan based on the contents of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1172 (June 1998) which
condemned the two countries’ nuclear tests. These were: 1) signing and ratifying the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); 2) halting all further production of fissile
material and participating in Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations; 3) limiting
development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) delivery vehicles; 4)
implementing strict export controls on sensitive WMD materials and technologies; and 5)
establishing bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan to resolve their mutual differences.
Progress in each of these areas has been limited, and the Bush Administration no longer
refers to the benchmark framework. Neither India nor Pakistan has signed the CTBT, and
both appear to be continuing their production of weapons-grade fissile materials. (India has
consistently rejected this treaty, as well as the NPT, as discriminatory, calling instead for a
global nuclear disarmament regime. Although both India and Pakistan currently observe
self-imposed moratoria on nuclear testing, they continue to resist signing the CTBT – a
CRS-8

---

IB93097
01-29-03
position made more tenable by U.S. Senate’s rejection of the treaty in 1999.) The status of
weaponization and deployment is unclear, though there are indications that this is occurring
at a slow, but more or less steady pace. Aside from security concerns, the governments of
both countries are faced with the prestige factor attached to their nuclear programs and the
domestic unpopularity of relinquishing what are perceived to be potent symbols of national
power. Early optimism in the area of export controls has waned somewhat as fears that these
countries, especially Pakistan, might seek to export WMD materials and/or technologies have
gained some credence: Pakistan’s possible transfers of uranium enrichment materials to
North Korea are receiving renewed attention, and a 2002 report by the British government
named an Indian trading company as being complicit in aiding Iraq’s chemical weapons and
missile propellant programs. Finally, although there has been no repeat of the intense
military clashes of May-June 1999, and a recent ten-month-long military standoff has eased,
tensions in Kashmir remain high, and bilateral dialogue is not occurring.
With Pakistan and, especially, India making improvements in both their conventional
and nonconventional military forces – and given the danger of conflict escalation in the
region – the United States has focused on restraining the outbreak of a dyadic military
conflict on the Asian subcontinent. In 2002, India and Pakistan have become important
members of the U.S.-led counterterror coalition, and – although the White House stated in
its December 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction that the
United States must induce proliferant states to end their WMD and missile programs – it is
unlikely that future U.S. diplomatic efforts will be as vigorous as they were following the
1998 nuclear weapons tests. In fact, some observers have called for a new approach that
would provide technical assistance in enhancing the security of any WMD materials in South
Asia. A provision in the defense authorization bill to expand Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs to nations outside of the former Soviet Union did not appear in the final version,
but the issue may arise again in the 108th Congress (see CRS Report RL31589, Nuclear
Threat Reduction Measures for India and Pakistan).
Congressional Action. Through a series of legislative measures, Congress has lifted
nuclear-related sanctions both on India and Pakistan. In October 1999, Congress passed H.R.
2561, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000, and it was signed by the
President as P.L. 106-79 on October 29. Title IX of the act gives the President authority to
waive sanctions applied against India and Pakistan in response to the nuclear tests. In a
presidential determination on India and Pakistan issued on October 27, 1999, the President
waived economic sanctions on India. On September 22, 2001, President Bush issued a final
determination removing remaining sanctions on Pakistan and India resulting from their 1998
nuclear tests. Currently, the last effects of the nuclear sanctions are four Indian entities (and
their subsidiaries) that remain on the Department of Commerce list of entities for which
export licenses are required. (For details, see CRS Report RS20995, India and Pakistan:
Current U.S. Economic Sanctions.)
Title XVI, Section 1601 of P.L. 107-228 outlines nonproliferation objectives to be
achieved in South Asia with respect to nuclear testing, nuclear weapons and ballistic missile
deployments and developments, export controls and confidence-building measures. In
addition, the section states that it shall be the policy of the United States consistent with its
NPT obligations, to encourage, and where appropriate, work with the governments of India
and Pakistan to achieve not later than September 30, 2003, the establishment of “modern,
effective systems to protect and secure nuclear devices and materiel from unauthorized use,
CRS-9

---

IB93097
01-29-03
accidental employment, or theft.” The conferees noted that “any such dialogue with India
or Pakistan would not be represented or considered, nor would it be intended, as granting any
recognition to India or Pakistan, as appropriate, as a nuclear weapon state.” The section
requires the President to submit a report to Congress no later than March 1, 2003, on U.S.
efforts to achieve the objectives and likelihood of success by September 2003 (see CRS
Report RL31589, Nuclear Threat Reduction Measures for India and Pakistan).
U.S.-India Security Cooperation. Unlike U.S.-Pakistan military ties, which date
back to the 1950s, security cooperation between the United States and India is in the early
stages of development. Since September 2001, and despite a concurrent U.S. rapprochement
with Pakistan, India-U.S. security cooperation has flourished. Both countries have
acknowledged a desire for greater bilateral security cooperation and a series of measures
have been taken to achieve this. The India-U.S. Defense Policy Group – moribund since
India’s 1998 nuclear tests and ensuing U.S. sanctions – was revived in late 2001. Joint
Executive Steering Groups between the U.S. and Indian armed services hold regular
meetings. During 2002, the United States and India held numerous joint exercises involving
all military branches. Press reports indicate that unprecedented advanced air combat
exercises are planned for 2003.
Along with this increasingly frequent type of interaction, the issue of U.S. arms sales
to India has taken a higher profile. In February 2002, Congress was notified of the negotiated
sale to India of 8 counter-battery radar sets (or “Firefinder” weapon locating radars) valued
at more than $100 million (the following September, arrangements were made for the sale
of four additional sets). The Indian government reportedly possesses an extensive “wish-list”
of desired U.S.-made weapons, including P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft, Patriot anti-
missile systems, and electronic warfare systems. The United States reportedly is prepared
to provide Indian security forces with sophisticated electronic ground sensors that may help
stem the tide of militant infiltration in the Kashmir region. U.S. Ambassador Blackwill
stated in November 2002 that “the Pentagon is expeditiously processing the Indian army’s
request for significant Special Forces equipment and border sensors.”
In a controversial turn, the Indian government reportedly is seeking to purchase a
sophisticated missile-defense system – the Arrow Weapon System – from Israel. However,
because the United States took the lead in the system’s development, the U.S. government
has veto power over any Israeli exports of the Arrow. Although numerous U.S. Defense
Department officials are seen to support the sale as meshing with President Bush’s policy of
cooperating with friendly countries on missile defense, State Department officials are
reported to opposed the transfer, believing that it would send the wrong signal to other
weapons-exporting states at a time when the U.S. is seeking to discourage weapons
proliferation in the international system.
Joint India-U.S. military exercises and arms sales negotiations have caused disquiet in
Pakistan, where there reportedly is concern that these developments will strengthen India’s
position through an appearance that the United States is siding with India. Islamabad is
concerned that its already disadvantageous conventional military status vis-a-vis New Delhi
will be further eroded by India’s acquisition of additional modern weapons platforms. In
fact, numerous observers have noted what appears to be a pro-India drift in the U.S.
government’s strategic orientation in South Asia, along with signs that the United States has
been frustrated by the continued flow of separatist militants across the Kashmiri Line of
CRS-10

---

IB93097
01-29-03
Control and into Indian Kashmir (despite numerous promises by the Pakistani government
that such movements would cease). At the same time, the United States regularly lauds
Pakistan’s participation as a key ally in the U.S.-led counterterrorism coalition. (For a
detailed discussion, see CRS Report RL31644, U.S.-India Security Relations.)
Regional Dissidence and Human Rights
A vastly diverse country in terms of ethnicity, language, culture, and religion, India can
be difficult to govern. Internal instability resulting from diversity is further complicated by
colonial legacies – for example, international borders separating members of the same ethnic
groups, creating flashpoints for regional dissidence and separatism. Kashmir and Punjab are
two areas that have witnessed separatist struggles in the past decade. On a lesser scale, there
are similar problems of incomplete national integration in other parts of India, particularly
the northeast, where a number of smaller dissident groups are fighting either for separate
statehood, autonomy, or independence. The remote and underdeveloped northeast is
populated by a complex mosaic of ethnic and religious groups, both tribal and non-tribal.
Migration of non-tribal peoples into less populated tribal areas is at the root of many
problems in that region. India-Bangladesh relations have been disrupted in recent months
by New Delhi’s accusations that Dhaka is taking insufficient action against Pakistan-
supported separatist militants who find sanctuary on Bangladeshi territory.
Gujarat. In February 2002, a group of Hindu activists returning by train from the city
of Ayodha – the site of the razed 16th century Babri Mosque and the proposed Ram
Janmabhoomi Temple – were attacked by a Muslim mob in the town of Godhra, Gujarat, and
58 people were killed. In the communal rioting that followed, at least 1,000 people were
killed, most of them Muslim. Many observers criticized the BJP-led state and national
governments for inaction; some even saw evidence of state government complicity in anti-
Muslim attacks. Although the BJP survived a motion of censure, some key national coalition
partners expressed their displeasure by abstaining from vote. The government’s inability to
successfully quell violence in Gujarat has led to rifts within India’s BJP-led National
Democratic Alliance. In December 2002, in what many analysts see as a vindication of the
BJP government in Gujarat and its Hindu-nationalist tack, state elections resulted in a
decisive BJP victory, and Hindu-nationalist groups are vowing to employ in other states what
are seen by many to be divisive communal tactics.
Human Rights. According to the U.S. State Department India Country Report on
Human Rights Practices for 2001 (March 2002), there continued to be significant human
rights abuses in India, despite extensive constitutional and statutory safeguards. Much of the
blame for such problems is assigned to India’s “traditionally hierarchical social structure,
deeply rooted tensions among the country’s many ethnic and religious communities, violent
secessionist movements and the authorities’ attempts to repress them, and deficient police
methods and training.” These problems are acute in Jammu and Kashmir, where judicial
tolerance of New Delhi’s heavy-handed anti-insurgency tactics, the refusal of security forces
to obey court orders, and terrorist threats have disrupted the judicial system.

In dealing with regional dissidence, the Indian government has employed a wide range
of security legislation, including laws that permit authorities to search and arrest without
warrant and detain persons for a year without charge or bail. Other security laws prescribe
sentences of not less than 5 years for disruptive speech or actions. Special courts have been
CRS-11

---

IB93097
01-29-03
established that meet in secret and are immune from the usual laws of evidence. In some
cases, security forces are given permission to shoot to kill. A reported 5,000 Kashmiris
currently are in jail under anti-terrorist laws. In general, India has denied international human
rights groups official access to Kashmir, Punjab, and other sensitive areas. In 1995,
however, the Indian government allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross
permission to begin a program of prison visits in Jammu and Kashmir. Both Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch have expressed grave concern over serious human
rights abuses by militant groups in Kashmir, Punjab, and Gujarat, including kidnaping,
extortion, and killing of civilians.
A secular nation, India has a long tradition of religious tolerance (with occasional
lapses), which is protected under its constitution. India’s population includes a Hindu
majority of 82% as well as a large Muslim minority of more than 130 million (14%).
Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and others each total less than 3%. Although freedom
of religion is protected by the Indian government, human rights observers have noted that
India’s religious tolerance is susceptible to attack by religious extremists. Government
policy does not favor any group, but some fears have been raised by the coming to power of
the Hindu-nationalist BJP since 1998.
The rights of Indian women and children are not always well protected. The aborting
of female fetuses and female infanticide has occurred at such high rates that scores of
millions of women are said to be “missing” from India. Child labor is another serious human
rights problem for India. According to the State Department’s Human Rights Report,
enforcement of child labor laws in India is weak and the number of child laborers could be
as high as 55 million. A major factor is India’s lack of a compulsory education law requiring
even primary education.
India’s Economy and U.S. Concerns
Many observers believe that India’s long-term economic potential is tremendous, and
recent strides in the technology sector have brought international attention to such high-tech
centers as Bangalore and Hyderabad. Yet analysts – along with some U.S. government
officials – also point to excessive regulatory and bureaucratic structures as a hindrance to
the realization of India’s full economic potential. Constant comparisons with the progress
of the Chinese economy show India lagging in rates of growth and foreign investment, and
in the removal of trade barriers. After enjoying an average growth rate above 6% for the
1990s, the Indian economy has cooled somewhat with the recent global economic downturn.
For 2002, the estimated real change in GDP stands at 4.5%. Analysts believe the New Delhi
government’s target of 8-9% growth for 2003 is overly optimistic, and consider a rate of at
least 5.5% to be more realistic. Inflation rates have been fairly low (est. 4.3% in 2002), but
are expected to climb somewhat in coming years.
A major U.S. concern with regard to India is the scope and pace of reforms in what has
been that country’s quasi-socialist economy. Economic reforms begun in 1991, under the
Congress-led government of then-Prime Minister Rao, boosted economic growth and led to
a flood of foreign investment to India in the mid-1990s. Annual direct foreign investment
rose from about $100 million in 1990 to $2.4 billion by 1996. More than one-third of these
investments were made by major U.S. companies. Reform efforts stagnated, however, under
the weak coalition governments of the mid-1990s. The Asian financial crisis, and economic
CRS-12

---

IB93097
01-29-03
sanctions on India (as a result of its May 1998 nuclear tests), further dampened the economic
outlook.
Following the 1999 parliamentary election, the Vajpayee government kicked off a
second-generation of economic reforms – including removing foreign exchange controls,
opening the insurance industry to foreign investment, privatizing internet services, and
cutting tariffs – with the goal of attracting $10 billion annually in foreign direct investment.
Once seen as favoring domestic business and diffident about foreign involvement, the
government appears to be gradually embracing globalization and has sought to reassure
foreign investors with promises of transparent and nondiscriminatory policies. Most
recently, the debate over privatization focuses on the proposed sale of India’s two large state-
owned oil companies, a sale supported by the BJP but opposed by other politically powerful
groups.
As India’s largest trading and investment partner, the United States strongly supports
New Delhi’s continuing economic reform policies. U.S. exports to India in 2002 were
valued at $3.7 billion, while imports from India in that year totaled just under $11 billion.
Despite significant tariff reductions and other measures taken by India to improve market
access, according to the report of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) for 2002,
a number of foreign trade barriers remain and, in November 2002, then-U.S. Treasury
Secretary O’Neill noted that India’s average tariff rates are among the highest in Asia. U.S.
exports that reportedly would benefit from lower Indian tariffs include fertilizers, wood
products, computers, medical equipment, scrap metals, and agricultural products. The import
of consumer goods is restricted, and other items, such as agricultural commodities and
petroleum products, may only be imported by government trading monopolies.
Inadequate intellectual property rights protection, by means of patents, trademarks and
copyrights, has been a long-standing issue between the United States and India. In a
November 2002 speech in Mumbai, U.S. Under Secretary of State Larson made an explicit
link between the improvement of India’s intellectual property rights protections and India’s
further economic growth. Major areas of irritation have included pirating of U.S.
pharmaceuticals, books, tapes, and videos. U.S. motion picture industry representatives
estimated their annual losses due to audiovisual piracy at $66 million. In April 2002, the
USTR again named India to the Special 301 Priority Watch List for its lack of protection and
enforcement of intellectual property rights.
U.S. Aid
In 1999, the population of India exceeded one billion and is projected to be larger than
that of China by 2035. One-third of India’s people live below the poverty line – India has
more poor people than Africa and Latin America combined – and half its children are
malnourished. India has more HIV-infected people (4 million) than any other country. The
already low country-wide female literacy rate of 39% dips to 30% in some regions and rural
areas. Nearly 40% of India’s urban population live in slums with no access to clean water
and sanitation services.
The U.S. foreign aid appropriation for India for FY2002 devoted $70.9 million in
Development Assistance/Child Survival and Health Programs (DA/CSH); $7 million in
Economic Support Funds (ESF); $86.4 million in P.L. 480 food assistance; $1 million in
CRS-13

---

IB93097
01-29-03
IMET; and $900,000 in Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, De-mining, and Related Programs
(NADR-ECA). The major USAID goals in India for FY2002 included encouraging
broad-based economic growth, stabilizing population growth, enhancing food security and
nutrition, protecting the environment, reducing transmission of AIDS/HIV and other
infectious diseases, and expanding the role and participation of women in decision-making.
P.L. 480 funds go to providing food assistance, largely through private voluntary agencies.
For FY2003, USAID is requesting $75.2 million in Development Assistance, $25 million in
ESF, and $91.3 million in P.L. 480 funds for India. The United States is the third largest
bilateral aid donor to India, after Japan and Britain.
Narcotics
India is the world’s largest producer of legal opium for pharmaceutical purposes – some
of which reportedly is diverted illegally to heroin production – and the country serves as a
major transit route for drugs originating in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Burma. It also is a
major supplier to those countries of the chemical used in manufacturing heroin. Most of the
heroin transiting India is bound for Europe. India itself has an estimated 1.2 million heroin
addicts and 4.5 million who are addicted to opium. Needle-sharing by heroin users has
contributed to the spread of the AIDS virus throughout the country.
India’s counter-narcotics efforts are hampered by lack of political and budgetary
support, lack of infrastructure in drug-producing areas, and corruption among police,
government officials, and local politicians. U.S. counter-narcotics assistance to India funds
training programs for enforcement personnel and the Indian Coast Guard. In March 2002,
India was again included on the annual list of major illicit drug producing and transiting
countries eligible to receive U.S. foreign aid and other economic and trade benefits.
CHRONOLOGY
01/25/03 –– India and Iran launched a “strategic partnership” with the signing of the New
Delhi Declaration and 7 other substantive agreements. On January 23, an
Indian official announced that India and Iran are planning to conduct joint
military exercises as part of increased defense cooperation. New Delhi also
is seen to be working to improve bilateral economic ties with neighboring
Burma as a means of countering the growing influence of China there.
01/22/23 –– After reports of the harassment of an Indian diplomat in Islamabad, New
Delhi announced the expulsion of four members of the Pakistani mission to
India. Pakistan quickly announced an apparent “tit for tat” expulsion of four
Indian diplomats from Islamabad. The diplomatic row further dampened
hopes that the two countries might renew bilateral dialogue in the near-term.
01/21/03 –– U.S. Ambassador to New Delhi Blackwill stated that the
Bush
Administration is “determined to move the U.S.-India relationship to new
heights” given the two countries’ shared vital national interests that include
promoting peace and freedom in Asia, combating international terrorism, and
slowing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
CRS-14

---

IB93097
01-29-03
01/20/03 –– India held its third missile test in an 11-day period. Pakistan responded by
accusing New Delhi of trying to provoke a regional arms race, while the
United States expressed disappointment, claiming that such tests “contribute
to a charged atmosphere” and “make it harder to prevent a costly and
destabilizing nuclear and missile arms race.”
01/17/03 –– After a two-day meeting on military-technical cooperation, India and Russia
signed a “landmark” defense cooperation protocol that sets up several joint
ventures for developing sophisticated weapons platforms. Pakistan
responded with complaints that India is on a “reckless path of militarization”
that will “aggravate the existing imbalance in the region.”
01/16/03 –– A U.S. opinion survey indicated that perceptions of poor infrastructure and
excessive bureaucracy in India are limiting U.S. investor interest in the
country (a notion echoed by U.S. government officials). Another recent poll
from the tourist industry indicates that the rank of India as a preferred holiday
destination for Americans has dropped sharply in recent years, due mostly to
concerns about security and terrorism.
01/15/03 –– U.S. and Indian officials met in New Delhi to discuss missile defense issues.
01/07/03 –– U.S. Department of State Director of Policy Planning Haass stated while in
India that the Bush Administration is determined to strengthen U.S.-India ties
based on “trust” and “mutual values.” He called New Delhi a “stalwart
member” of the U.S.-led anti-terrorism coalition and urged India to improve
its economic situation by modernizing its bureaucratic and regulatory
structures, and by normalizing relations with Pakistan.
01/05/03 –– India announced that it has set up a nuclear weapons command system – the
Nuclear Command Authority – headed by the prime minister.
12/27/02 –– India’s Defense Minister claimed that “3,000 Pakistan-sponsored terrorists
are on India soil.” Two days later, India’s Deputy Prime Minster called
Pakistan the “epicenter of terrorism,” and claimed that terrorist training
camps in Pakistan-held Kashmir have been reactivated. Also in January,
India’s army chief claimed that “there is no drop in the level of infiltration”
across the Kashmir Line of Control.
12/26/03 –– The United States and India signed an accord – known as an Article 98
agreement – calling for the non-surrender of nationals to any international
criminal court without prior consent.
12/24/02 –– The president of India’s coalition-leading, Hindu-nationalist BJP party
declared that the BJP will “duplicate the Gujarat experience everywhere” as
it represented a “mandate for the [Hindutva] ideology.” The statement
spurred criticism that the BJP approach is a dire threat to India’s tradition of
secularism and seeks to exploit religious divisions for political gain. Four
Indian states are slated to hold elections in February 2003, and another five
are to hold polls in November 2003.
12/02
–– The United States reiterated its position that India should resume a bilateral
dialogue with Pakistan despite the ongoing infiltration of separatist militants
into Indian Kashmir (the U.S. envoy to India later asserted that “the problem
obviously in Kashmir is cross border terrorism” that is “almost completely
externally driven”). Also, elections in the state of Gujarat, the site of massive
communal violence earlier in 2002, resulted in an unexpectedly decisive
victory for the incumbent Hindu-nationalist BJP party and a major defeat for
CRS-15

---

IB93097
01-29-03
the more secular Congress Party. The poll has been cast as an important
index of the future course of Indian politics at the national level.
11/02
–– During a meeting in New Delhi of the U.S.-India Security Cooperation
Group, top U.S. defense officials discussed the sale of U.S. arms to India.
Representatives of leading American weapons makers also met Indian
officials in an effort to gain entry to an Indian market currently dominated by
Russia.
10/02
–– New Delhi announced a major redeployment of troops away from the India-
Pakistan border, apparently signaling an end to a tense 10-month-long
military face-off with Pakistan. The mobilization is reported to have cost
India more than $1.7 billion.
09-10/02 –– State elections in India’s Jammu and Kashmir result in the ousting of the
long-ruling National Conference party of Farooq Abdullah and the seating of
a new government ruled by a coalition that vows to “soften” the policy
toward separatist militants. In boycotting the election, the Kashmiri
separatist All Parties Hurriyat Conference – which has political ties to
Islamabad – found itself marginalized. The state’s new coalition government
initiated a “common minimum program” that contains controversial policies,
including the release of jailed political prisoners. These policies were
criticized by top New Delhi officials. Separatist guerillas – whose actions
reportedly are responsible for up to 800 deaths in the lead-up to elections –
deny the legitimacy of the Srinagar government and vow to continue their
violent campaign in the region.
09/02
–– Gunmen storm a Hindu temple in Gujarat resulting in the deaths of 23
worshipers. The attackers are suspected to be Islamic militants seeking
revenge for February 2002 anti-Muslim rioting in the state.
06/02
–– Intense international diplomatic pressure – including multiple visits to the
region by senior U.S. government officials – apparently was sufficient to
persuade New Delhi to refrain from taking military action against Pakistan.
Key to the effort are explicit promises by Pakistani President Musharraf to
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Armitage that all infiltration of militants
across the Line of Control and into Indian-held Kashmir will be halted.
05/02
–– A terrorist attack on an Indian army base in Jammu and Kashmir killed
dozens of people, mostly women and children. New Delhi blamed the attack
on the “cross-border terrorism” of Pakistan-sponsored Islamic militants and
vowed to fight a “decisive war” against Pakistan.
02/02
–– After Muslims reportedly set fire to a train carrying Hindu activists, killing
58, India’s worst communal rioting in more than a decade spreads across the
Gujarat state over a period of two weeks and results in the deaths of at least
1,000, mostly Muslims at the hands of vengeful Hindu mobs. Gujarat Chief
Minister and BJP leader Narendra Modi is accused by some of abetting the
violence.
01/02
–– Pakistani President Musharraf delivered a landmark address in which he
vowed to end all Islamic extremism and terrorist activity originating from
Pakistani soil.
12/01
–– A terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament complex in New Delhi leaves 14
people dead. India blames the attack on Pakistan-backed Kashmiri militants
and begins a massive military mobilization along the Pakistan-India frontier.
By the spring of 2002 some one million heavily-armed troops faced-off at the
CRS-16

---

IB93097
01-29-03
shared border. Also in December, the United States designates two Pakistan-
based militant groups – Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed – as
Foreign Terrorist Organizations under U.S. law.
10/01
–– A terrorist attack on the assembly building in India’s Jammu and Kashmir
state kills 34 people. New Delhi blames the attack on Pakistan-backed
separatist militants and the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister calls for an
Indian military assault on training camps in Pakistan-held Kashmir.
09/01
–– Immediately after the terrorist attacks on the United States, India offered its
full support for U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region. Within two
months, all remaining proliferation-related restrictions on U.S. aid to India
were lifted.
CRS-17

---