Environment, Population and Conflict: New Modalities of Threat and Vulnerability in South Asia (1) (2002)

clear consensus among many political observers is that contemporary South Asia is highly vulnerable to violent Moreover, a substantial number of analysts contend that change and population growth are amplifying this vulnerability and may trigger next major conflict in The eminent American political scientist Samuel Huntington, writing about likely sites of future conflict around world, argues that [t]he great divisions among humankind and dominating source of conflict [in years ahead] will cultural. (2) He predicts that [t]he clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. (3) Within this paradigm, Huntington contends, South Asia stands out as one of most vulnerable regions of world. He worries that [t]he historic clash between Muslim and Hindu in subcontinent manifests itself now not only in rivalry between Pakistan and India but also in intensifying religious strife within India between increasingly militant Hindu groups and India's substantial Muslim minority. (4) Norman Myers, a British scientist, offers further reasons for concern. While Myers also comments on longstanding antagonism between Hinduism and Islam, which he believes may be exacerbated by fundamentalist Muslim spirit that emanates from Iran, focus of his analysis is degradation. (5) In particular, Himalayan water catchment, which is vital to this region, is being damaged by rapid deforestation. This decline is leading to This decline is leading to agricultural setbacks, indeed to growing incapacity of many areas to support human communities. Yet total population of this region, more than 1.2 billion people today, is projected to approach ... 2.6 billion before it finally levels out ... in next century. (6) South Asia, Myers concludes, presents much scope for conflict. (7) Peter Gizewski and Thomas Homer-Dixon offer further reason for concern. They argue that environmental scarcity [in Pakistan] could eventually become so severe that conflict and institutional breakdown it generates become self-sustaining. In that event, regime may try to divert attention from internal crisis by exacerbating tensions with its neighbors. Longstanding regional disputes (for instance, in Kashmir) would provide a ready pretext for such behavior. The potential dangers of such a course--for regional as well as global security--would considerable. (8) Elsewhere, Homer-Dixon makes a similar argument with regard to India: Indian social institutions and democracy are now under extraordinary strain. The strain arises from a rapid yet incomplete economic transition, from widening gaps between wealthy and poor, from chronically weak political institutions, and, not least, from continued population growth and worsening scarcities. Should these converging pressures cause major internal violence ... economic, migration, and security consequences for rest of world would staggering. (9) Recognizing urgency of these threats, M. V. Ramana and A. H. Nayyar, physicists and policy analysts from South Asia, argue that conflict in region could result in unprecedented levels of destruction. In May 1998, India conducted five nuclear tests; three weeks later Pakistan responded with six nuclear detonations of its own. In 1999, a two-month-long war erupted between two countries in long-disputed province of Kashmir, claiming more than 3,000 lives and making Indian subcontinent, according to Ramana and Nayyar, the most likely place in world for a nuclear war. (10) The clear consensus among many political observers is that contemporary South Asia is highly vulnerable to violent Moreover, a substantial number of analysts contend that change and population growth are amplifying this vulnerability and may trigger next major conflict in region. …