Lots of stray thoughts follow:
Superpowers – current, former, or wannabe – no. Not even close.
re. USA and Russia – India’s decades-long pursuance of “third way/independent” geopolitical alignments had resolved, post-Cold War, into an easy trading relationship with the USA and, presumably, Russia and most of the other former-Soviet republics. [Dunno about India’s relationships with the largely Islamic "-stan"s et al. (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya), or whether Pakistan-aided insurgency in Kashmir is believed to receive significant support from any groups in those countries. I wouldn’t doubt it with regards to the Chechen fighters who have been linked to Al Queda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, though.]
That was before both India and Pakistan embarked on their fin-de-siecle rounds of nuclear tests, however. IIRC these violations of previous arms-testing treaties automatically tripped off American military and economic sanctions of both countries (restricting arms sales, foreign aid, and maybe some forms of trade?). Dunno if the Russians did anything likewise.
I strongly doubt the Chinese would be tempted to conspicuously align themselves strongly with either side, barring the emergence of a sustained campaign of pan-Islamicist support of Islamicist insurgents in China’s peripheral regions, especially if they showed the ability and willingness to stage “9/11”-type terrorist acts against China’s great urban metropolises.
Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. cultivated an alliance of exigency with Pakistan, largely to counter India’s independent (but generally pro-Soviet) leanings, and to help contain Soviet ambitions in the region. The U.S.-Pakistan friendship was strongest in the decade after the USSR invaded Afghanistan and had cooled considerably ever since the Soviets’ withdrawal and national collapse until recent events.
AFAIK, the U.S. has never supported Pakistan’s claims to Kashmir, and we have always promoted peace (or the best we can get, the occasional ceasefire) for that troubled province.
Given what we know of popularity of Islamicism and its terrorist arms in Pakistan, its role in fomenting insurgency in Kashmir, Pakistan’s accelerated nuclear weapons program, and the degree of Pakistan’s previous support for the formerly Taliban government in Afghanistan, I doubt we’ll be kissing cousins anytime soon – in spite of our support for “Prime Minister” Musharraf.
One would hope that India’s demonstrated ballistic capabilities would deter any regional powers (Iran, Iraq) from joining in the fun, but who knows?
I think it’s worth noting that, as in the case of Israel, India is the lone major USA-friendly democracy in its neighborhood; that both are virtually encircled by Islamic nations (albeit of a variety of ethnicities, languages, cultures, etc.); and that the continued political and economic stability, and fundamental security of both are imperilled by ongoing campaigns of terrorist insurgency. I think that’s one reason why evidence of pan-Islamicism in Al-Qaeda is so troubling. Should evidence mount that the insurgents in Kashmir (which have included Al-Qaeda operatives, among others) are becoming more international and representative of all of India’s Muslim neighbors, that could only intensify India’s sense of alarm and feeling of being cornered. The fact that the U.S.'s uneasy alliance with the Musharraf-led Pakistan has survived the attack by Pakistan militants on India’s Parliament can’t be very comforting to India, either. Musharraf has repeatedly denounced the Kashmir insurgency and the terrorist methods used by the insurgents, and he has very recently promised to clamp down on those militants. Echoes of Arafat – even assuming Musharraf is utterly sincere, just how capable is he of delivering on his promise, and how much longer can he spend his political capital on an internationalist policy so unpopular at home? Can we take it as a harbinger of things to come that in the past 48 hours, Pakistan conducted yet another illegal nuclear test, this time demonstrating ballistic launching capability?
As Bush’s willingness to contemplate a unilateral war against Iraq illustrates, if you feel that your back is up against the wall (as we feel re. terrorism at home), you may prove willing to take the political and military risks associated with “going it alone”. We are right to be extremely concerned about the danger that “loose nukes” pose to our security; but it may be even likelier that such a terrorist attack would target a city in India, in the name of liberating Kashmir. At that point, India might well feel that it has nothing left to lose and launch a devastating first strike against Pakistan, while warning that it has sufficient ballistic reserves with which to deter others.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that it isn’t the unshakable strength of old-fashioned national alliances but the post-Cold War relative weakness of thereof (and their supplantation with religion-fueled belligerency), which serves to destabilize the region. Both India and Pakistan have determined to “go it alone” with respect to their nuclear weapons development, at tremendous political and economic costs to both.