Eqbal Ahmad: Post - Pokhran Days

The happy one!

My reference to mass hysteria was in reference to your post where you wrote as emblem to detonation of atomic blast.

``The nationalistic fervor rising up in India over the last decade or so has been marked by a desire to be recognized as an international power. There was a pervasive feeling of inferiority with regards to west---``

I thought it a polite way of saying mass hysteria. If it means otherwise I apologize.

In your recent post you are saying that a responsible (read elected) Government should control Atomic program. In this regards you have given the examples of RESPONSIBLE (read non elected dictatorship) states like Russia and China.(who had nuclear weapons all along their Communist dictatorial regime. So your argument of responsibility and elected Government is invalid. Moreover the only country which has ever used Atomic Bomb (possibly also to get votes like BJP did) was most democratic nation in the world (America)

Re: Krashid # 77

You said, ``Your logic of mass hysteria leading to atomic blast points to a very dangerous trend in India.

If it is so then what is the guarantee that on PUBLIC DEMAND Vajpayee will not put his trigger on Atomic bomb. That logic is very dangerous and against all norms of responsible Government.``

Your amazing statement shows a staggering lack of respect for the Indian people.

1. There was ``no mass hysteria leading up to`` pokharan 2. In fact nobody was even vaguely aware of any planning going on in that direction! Simply put, Vajpayee was aware of the fact that it would be a popular thing to do and that played a big part in his decision (what with him being part of a coalition government in a democracy and everything). The intent of my post was to point out the myriad objectives and compulsions that lead to the blasts to the Pakistanis to convince them that the blasts were not directed at them. If any particular country was the `recipient` of a `message`, it was the USA (as evidenced by the code message after the blasts). But it WAS of paramount importance to India that Pakistan tested right after India did and hence the desperate goading by the Indians. Obviously my post did very little to convince you.

2. You seem to see no distinction between testing and lobbing a nuke. By your logic, what is stopping the United States to lob 1,200 devices at various countries? Do you actually think that people in India will ``demand`` that a bomb be lobbed at Pakistan? And that if that were to happen, the political leadership will actually comply under the belief that they will be voted into power in the next elections?? India is THE ONLY country of all `declared`, `undeclared but capable` & `threshold` countries to have an adopted `no first use` policy. The conventional wisdom of the doctrine of deterrence is that you have to come across as somebody who is crazy enough to use a nuke first. The Americans had to put up elaborate charades and posture constantly during the cold war (especially during the Cuban missile crisis) to come across as crazy people who would not mind lobbing first (would that be in keeping with `responsible norms of governance` in your opinion?). And here is India adopting a `no first use` policy in their doctrine and all the Pakistanis did was to call the doctrine indicative of India`s `expansionist` and `hegomonistic` nature. Why? Because the doctrine calls for `weaponization` in all the services? Well, what did you expect India to do with the warheads, use them as elevator counterweights?? There can be no effective deterrence unless you can demonstrate the ability to counterstrike within seconds. Of course the Indians will `weaponize`!

3. As far as `responsibility` with nukes goes, take comfort in the fact that not USA, not Britain, not China, not Russia, not France (the way you are going around antagonizing everybody, pretty soon all of the above will be your enemies), but ONLY INDIA has so far promised you that they will NOT nuke you first!!

The nukes are here. On both sides. And they will be fully weaponized, on both sides. So let`s get over this whole business of who started first. As somebody pointed out, Pakistanis being at a disadvantage conventionally will never agree to no first use. Ok, fine. In response India will maintain a stockpile that is much larger. What is desperately needed is an open communication line and an effective command and control structure. What is desperately needed is some build up of mutual trust and a bilateral policy on crises management such as an `accidental launch` or a `Broken Arrow`. Maybe some consensus can be reached to refrain from installing a `hair-trigger` response system or better yet have a `zero-alert` kind of a command structure. What is desperately needed is that the trigger be in responsible (read elected) hands within Pakistan.

In order to achieve all of the above; what is desperately needed is a DEMOCRATIC & STABLE PAKISTAN!! And I would absolutely LOVE for it to be secular! Are you with me on that one?

On the midnight of 12/31/99, Russian scientist sat in the central control room at NORAD barely 10 miles from my apartment to monitor a possible `accidental launch` due to the Y2K bug. Americans were sitting in the Russian central control room simultaneously. I wonder if such cooperation would have been possible had the cold war still been on in full force.

The MAD theory is not all that mad if some trust can be built, some understanding and appreciation be gained of the opponent`s motives and some lines of communication be kept wide open.

Ref Assad_K #: 80

You say {Also, you`ve left out some gap here.. namely 1974. I have to assume that there was interest at a military or political level to have a nuclear detonation, rather than just the boffins! Research and development also must have continued, not just at a hypothetical level, but at a practical level as well... after all, Pokhran 2 came without much delay after the decision to go ahead was made! And it seems that what could be called the newer bomb lobby is definitely political, if not military.}

Perkovich claims that Indira Gandhi was unhappy at the international firestorm raised by Pokhran-1. She was upset at the withdrawal of aid by Canada and the active hostility of the US to India. So, though a second test was approved by Indira Gandhi in the 1982-83 timeframe, she withdrew her approval in 24 hours. Perkovich further makes the point that the military was never consulted by the scientists on either Pokran-1 or on the continuing development of new designs of weapons. In fact, the AEC is still supposedly totally at odds with the military. Though the DRDO (Defence Research & Development Organization) was involved in Pokhran-2, it is well-known that the military doesn`t get along with DRDO because DRDO has never delivered on the weapon systems that they have promised and because of this the Army has been caught in some difficult situations. About a month back there was a 4-part series on Rediff.com about DRDO and its failures. Essentially, the series attacked APJ Abul Kalam, the father of the Indian missile program.

Between 1974 and 1998, work continued on reducing the weight of the bomb and improving yields. The military will not rely on untested weapons and hence the need to test the new designs. But, just like in the US and the USSR, unless multiple tests of each weapons design is conducted, the Indian military would be reluctant to accept these weapons as being qualified for deployment.

Get Perkovich`s book. It is too long to be summarized by me.

You say {I`m surprised the Soviets would be unwilling to provide India with help in building a uranium enrichment plant..}

Both the US and the USSR saw the necessity to control proliferation; thus Russia`s unwillingness to provide technology except under IAEC safeguards. In fact, all the unsafeguarded reactors came from Canada or are of Indian origin. Russia hasn`t provided a single reactor to India yet (surprise!) and the power station to be built at Koodankulam in the extreme south with Russian aid will not come on stream till 2008 and will be under international safeguards.

You say {Without knowledge of our own development in terms of nuclear sciences, I can`t say whether we are genuinely far behind or not (pure nationalistic fervor, of course, tells me that we may be behind in terms of resources, but not in terms of theoretical knowledge!)}

If the uranium weapons tested by Pakistan are of the gun type, the technology is rather primitive. If it is of the implosion type, then the technology is harder to master. Plutonium weapons have to be of the implosion variety. More interestingly, uranium is much less toxic than plutonium which is dangerous in the extreme. This is the primary reason the Indians would never have attacked Pak`s nuclear facilities. It would be infinitely more dangerous to have Bombay contaminated with plutonium by a retaliatory Pak airstrike on the AEC facilities in Bombay.

As a doctor, you might be interested in the book, ``The Plutonium Files`` which talks about human experimentation in the US with nuclear material.

You say {in Pakistan the military was opposed to nuclear testing in response to Pokhran-2.}

Yes, I am aware of that. Why would they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (foreign aid)?

Gymnosophist re:78

I should probably add Perkovitch`s book to my list of things to get (alongwith Cloughey and Margolis). With luck, after I get them, I`ll devote the appropriate time to reading them as well!

So while I may have been wrong factually, I think spiritually my contention remains.. that Pakistans aspirations were guided - as they often still are - by the Indian claims (though Bhutto was undoubtedly more histrionic than any Indian regarding it!).

Also, you`ve left out some gap here.. namely 1974. I have to assume that there was interest at a military or political level to have a nuclear detonation, rather than just the boffins! Research and development also must have continued, not just at a hypothetical level, but at a practical level as well... after all, Pokhran 2 came without much delay after the decision to go ahead was made! And it seems that what could be called the newer bomb lobby is definitely political, if not military.

I`m surprised the Soviets would be unwilling to provide India with help in building a uranium enrichment plant.. nontheless, I guess it worked out all the better for India in the end learning from more basic steps. Without knowledge of our own development in terms of nuclear sciences, I can`t say whether we are genuinely far behind or not (pure nationalistic fervor, of course, tells me that we may be behind in terms of resources, but not in terms of theoretical knowledge!).

As a rejoinder at the end.. in Pakistan the military was opposed to nuclear testing in response to Pokhran-2. Unfortunately our opposition couldn`t resist threatening severe consequences if we didn`t test, and then going volte face and screeching about how the government had made Pakistans position so precarious by its ill-considered testing!

The Amazing Eqbal Ahmad

Agha Imran Hamid - The Friday Times



I am indebted to his close companion and my friend Radha Kumar for going through his articles for Dawn and selecting three eerily prescient pieces dating from 1995-96 that deal with Pakistan, India and Kashmir.



In 1995, he asked: ``When and why do soldiers stage coups d`état?`` He answered: ``The sense of failure in war or protracted frustration in achieving a strategic objective often induces military officers to blame the political system and leadership. Occasionally, resentment transforms into revolt.``



In 1996, Eqbal accurately summed up the position we find ourselves in today when he said: ``Realistic analysis would suggest that in the role of mediator, the US shall be keen to bring about peace in South Asia while favouring India over Pakistan and the two states over the stateless Kashmiris. Consider, among other factors, the following: India is a large market, roughly eight times larger than Pakistan. This ratio is reflected in the current volume of American investments in the two countries. It is many times more endowed in natural resources than Pakistan. Also, India is better positioned for rapid economic growth by virtue of educated manpower, infrastructure and standards of skill and literacy. Strategically, it is a large and populous country, in important respects a counterpoint to China. As a post-Cold War structure of international relations emerges, the United States seeks balancing mechanisms to strike a favourable equilibrium in its relations with China. India can serve this purpose better than any other country in Asia except Japan.``



On India`s role in Kashmir he wrote: ``In Kashmir, India is engaged as an incumbent; Pakistan supports the insurgency. It also happens in wars of incumbency and proxy that rivals hit each other with sabotage and subversion. In the process an estimated 40,000 people are dead, and many more wounded. Kashmir`s economy has been wrecked, and an entire generation of Kashmiris has already been deprived of normal upbringing and education. Yet, armed struggle and Indian repression have not brought Kashmiris closer either to self-determination, which is Pakistan`s demand, or to pacification which India seeks. In fact, both countries are further from attaining their goals in 1996 than they were in 1989.



``Kashmir`s discontent is rooted in history, economics, politics and psychology. The cause and dynamics of the Kashmiri movement lay in Kashmir and its experience with India. As such, it cannot be suppressed by force. Nor is it likely to be managed by electoral manipulations. Yet India has confronted the insurgency as incumbents normally do - with a combination of brute force, unlawful subversion, violations of Kashmiri humanity and, above all, denial of reality.



``In the last analysis, the successes and failures of counter-insurgency operations revolve around two questions: one, does the incumbent state enjoy at least residual legitimacy among the insurgent people? Two, is the incumbent power willing to accommodate those aspirations which converge to cause and sustain the insurgency? I had asked these questions twice before. Once in 1965 in relation to America`s war in Vietnam. Again in 1971, concerning Pakistan`s military operations in East Pakistan. For India too the answer to both questions is NO``.



Some of Eqbal`s clearest and harshest analysis was reserved for Pakistan`s twisted involvement in Kashmir: ``A brief look at the Kashmiri environment today leads to unhappy conclusions. a) At the outset, the uprising which began in 1989 was popular, politically rooted, and converging around one dominant party - the JKLF. Today, there are upwards of thirty groups, ideologically diverse, competing, often undercutting each other. In this free for all India`s counter-insurgency operatives have introduced their own players... b) Militarization has reached the resistance movement to the point that the political and military relationship has been reversed. The armed ones have primacy over the political wing of resistance. c) By all accounts the parallel hierarchies - administrative organs, justice and policing - which had begun to develop during 1989-92 have all but disintegrated as militarization augmented and resistance groups multiplied. d) Appearances notwithstanding, Kashmiri resistance is deeply divided over the question of objectives. Pro-Pakistan and pro-independence, Islamists and secularists, have little in common except their opposition to India, and this makes collaboration and coordination difficult, and in some cases, impossible. e) With few exceptions, the ideology and style of the resistance groups - some are linked to Pakistan`s Islamic parties - run counter to Kashmiri political culture which is by and large mystical, temporal and pluralistic. Above all, news from Pakistan undermines Kashmiri morale and undercuts their cause``. These analyses are spine-chilling today.

Ref Assad_K #: 74

You asked {if we started our nuclear program in 1971, did India start its own in response or was it already up and running?}

ZAB`s statement was in reaction to the Chinese test of October 1964. At that time, various Indian parliamentarians demanded that India build a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri categorically refused to do so in the Parliament. Shastri felt that the Chinese A-bomb was a political rather than a military weapon (in the sense that it would not be used militarily but only to intimidate others). The Bomb Lobby in India, identified as a bunch of scientists in the Atomic Energy Commission led by Homi Bhabha, was in favor of building the bomb. Bhabha went around making public statements that he could build a bomb in 6 months. (He could not have, but that is another story.) ZAB felt that if India built an A-bomb in response to the Chinese A-bomb, then Pakistan will have to get one too.

When Bhabha died in an aircrash in Jan 1966, he was replaced as head of the AEC by Vikram Sarabhai who cancelled all funding for any experiments related to the A-bomb. But you cannot prevent people from doing theoretical calculations. So, the design of a bomb went on at a slow and steady pace. Also, a reactor named Purnima was built which was used to learn about the properties of Plutonium-239. It was feared that most of the information in the public domain was deliberately wrong so that other countries would be steered in the wrong direction if they used the published properties of Plutonium-239.

By the way, Uranium enrichment was not an option for India since no country would sell a Uranium enrichment plant to India. So the only way out was to design a plutonium bomb, which is more difficult to build. In fact, the US team in Los Alamos tested their plutonium weapon in the desert but never bothered to test the Uraium weapon. The uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the plutonium bomb on Nagasaki.

Pakistan built its uranium enrichment plant in the 1980s as the US looked the other way. China is reported to have supplied the blueprints for the bomb as well as enough weapons-grade uranium for 2 bombs, in addition to selling ring magnets used in the uranium enrichment process.

It seems that there was no special Bomb Lobby in India except for the scientists at the AEC. The military and the politicians were against the Bomb. In contrast, in Pakistan it is the politicians and the military who pushed the effort for the Bomb.

Happyone#67

Your logic of mass hysteria leading to atomic blast points to a very dangerous trend in India.

If it is so then what is the guarantee that on PUBLIC DEMAND Vajpayee will not put his trigger on Atomic bomb.

That logic is very dangerous and against all norms of responsible Government.

RSaxena#69

You rightly said about Indian Muslims.

Inspite of all overt and covert discrimination, they are making headway.

Manish #70

You rightly said.

India was making the Nuclear explosion for its security needs.

And Pakistan was doing it out of jealousy of India (probably means without any security needs)

If I am slow, I am lazy. If you are slow you are thorough.

Gymnosophist,

Well, definitely have to start `Zulfi of Pakistan`.. Whoops.. my thanks to you, and my apologies to Manish, then. Dang. One follow up, then.. if we started our nuclear program in 1971, did India start its own in response or was it already up and running?

Ref Assad_K #: 72

You asked {Bhutto made that `We will eat grass` statement *before * Pokhran-1? I`m not too sure about that one..}

Yes, he did. In an interview with Patrick Keatley of the Manchester Guardian, reported on March 11, 1965, ZAB said that if India produced nuclear weapons ``then we should have to eat grass and get one, or buy one, of our own.``

Source: George Perkovich`s India`s Nuclear Bomb, page 108.

In fact, Perkovich goes on to say, ``This is a rather famous quote, although people who repeat it often assume it was made much later than 1965.`` (Page 503)

Perkovich also quotes sources to show that the nuclear weapons program was initiated by ZAB in 1971 right after he took over in Pakistan. So, Pakistan`s nuclear weapons program was NOT in reaction to Pokhran-1.

Manish re:70

Bhutto made that `We will eat grass` statement *before * Pokhran-1? I`m not too sure about that one..

Re: Ummah-air #44

You can shake your beard at the BJP`s ``fundamentalism`` all you want, but that doesn`t change the fact that the world sees fundamentalist and undemocratic dangers emanating from Pakistan and NOT India. Now, you obviously are more knowledgeable and insightful than the collective West and some of the Muslim countries like Turkey (not to mention their conspiracy against Pakistan) and so the premise of my suggestion surely falls apart...

i am really sorry for eqbal who all his life longed for friend ship between india and pakistan.

This is not a reply to your article but explanation. Before Pokharan way back in 74 one of the Pakistan preimier said, ``Pakistani will eat grass but will build a nuclear bomb``. It was his jealeousy, hatred towards India which made him say these words. Lets not blame indian right wings for Pokharan. What ever decission they have taken is in the interest of nation`s security. Pls look into pakistani hardliners who are fighting for so called freedom for muslims in kashmir. My dear friend, muslims in india are enjoy more free lifestyle as compare to hindus in pakistan. Muslims are second largerst majority in india,but in paksitan only few hindus are left.

Lets not blame on the Pokharan, but on hardliners in pakistan who in the name of islam fooling not one but whole generation of pakistanis.

Re: AD #155

There`s no need to prove or explain anything about the plight of Indian Muslims (that word itself rubs mirchi in the eyes of many Pakistanis) to Pakistani Chowkwallas. They can and do believe what they want to. Fact is, the borders are open; if they wanted to, Indian Muslims could walk straight out of India and into Pakistan (who I presume would welcome them with open arms, no?). But they have no reason or desire to leave and you all know why.

No matter who I was (Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or atheist), I would rather peg my hopes in India than Pakistan.

Farangi-Kush! Humanism particularly identification with the downtrodden people of any race, religion or creed comes after a lot of self sacrifice. It is more in consonant with Islam which believes in deeds as criteria and not empty words. If you read Quran it is amply evident that Christians and jews are told to come to correct belief but still Islam identifies itself with Ahl-e-Kitab and it is their ``Shirk`` which is targeted. Compare that with loathing of wrong actions, like changing the book to get some wordly benefit or those ``Namazis`` who don`t give to their neighbour or push the orphans are very bad people.

Compare that to our religious zealots who harp religion from every part of their body, but their actions are self centered. Religion is a crutch for them. Decision is with God or Allah as you know very well and on last day HE will judge between right and wrong and not between Muslims and non Muslims.

As far as your saying that there are lot of potential people who are not recognized is very true. But does it negate the accompalishment of people who are recognized.

As far as your saying of sitting with a Maulana and discuss with them. I don`t know what is your experience, but Maulana already know everything from theory of evolution to going of man to moon to current economics. So their opinion can be found on different issues, but discussing with them is a futile exercise.

Moreso if have been in discussion with some people of this breed, you will right away know that ``Sahba Akhtar`` is a better poet because he has used poem on Pakistan too much and there is ``Ahmed Salim Marhoom`` who is a first rate poet because he has used Islam in some places compared to ``Ahmed Faraz`` and ``Faiz ahmed Faiz`` or Ghalib. If you have not passed through all these you are lucky. I had seen enough to change my opinion.

Re: Mohajir #66

You bring up an important and often ignored (at least on predominantly Pakistani fora like Chowk) point. The most compelling reasons for the BJP leadership to detonate the devices were domestic in nature. Atal was taking it up the rear from Jaya and played his trump card. But that is not to say that the BJP and its RSS flank did not see the larger geo-strategic ramifications of the tests. The nationalist fervor rising up in India over the last decade or so has been marked by a desire to be recognized as an international power. There was a pervasive feeling of inferiority with regards to the west (symbolized by America) and disappointment at not being accorded due `respect`. China seemed to be profiting and commanding more `respect` even as it flouted the rules on a daily basis. What was the most frustrating however, was the blatant technology transfer by the Chinese to the Pakistanis completely ignored by the Americans. The American pressure on Glavcosmos to block the delivery of the cryogenic engine was an extremely contentious issue. The GSLV project (and therefore the ICBM) lay paralyzed. Things were getting to a head.

The rules had been laid out pretty straight.

1. Nuclear status = Permanent Security Council seat.

2. Nuclear status = Immunity from punitive strikes as incurred by Iraq, Serbia, etc. (even suspicion of having a nuke makes you more respected e.g. N. Korea)

3. Nuclear status = Immunity from all out invasion by neighbors.

The BJP leadership sought to gate crash the N-Club in order to:

1. Be considered on of the Big Boys.

2. Command more request from the US.

3. Lay ground work for a PSC seat.

4. Reduce the strategic imbalance with the US before opening up the markets to them.

5. Keep China in check.

6. Keep Pakistan in check.

7. Cash in on the ``national assertion`` movement (the `coming of age` or `regaining lost glory` crap).

8. Jack up Atal`s popularity so much that Jaya & Mamata would shut up.

9. Consolidate Atal`s position within BJP by keeping the hard liners happy.

Of course, all the Pakistanis thought was that India was getting ready to bomb them. When the Indians detonated, they did with the assumption that the Pakistanis would respond in kind. This would achieve many secondary objectives like:

1. Bring the extent of Pakistan`s capability out on the table.

2. Deplete Pakistan`s relatively limited stock of fissile material.

3. Cripple Pakistan economically due to inevitable sanctions.

4. Justify India`s tests.

These were important and necessary for India in order to meet its original prime objectives. Nobody seems to recognize that in the days following the Indian tests, every time there seemed to be some sign that the Pakistanis wont respond, Lalkrishenchandadvaniji or Geokaka would make an amazingly incendiary statement thereafter. It was almost like India was desperately goading Pakistan. Shariff had to respond and when he did, I am sure the BJP leadership breathed a sigh of relief.

Pakistanis get so Indo-centric (not surprising considering the history) that they tend to overlook India`s other compulsions. Geokaka actually pointed it out by saying that the tests were for China`s contemplative pleasure (that statement was meant almost exclusively for pentagon planners).

India first tested in 1974. The code words from Ground Zero to the PMO confirming successful completion of the tests were ``The Buddha has smiled``. The words were meant to send out the message that it was a `peaceful` detonation designed to make India`s ambitious Nuclear power plan more capable. When India tested again 24 years later, the code words were ``The White House has fallen``. No points for guessing who the `message` was for this time around!

When the tests happened, all the Indian experts mouthed platitudes about how this was a glorious `scientific` achievement. The phrase `scientific achievement` was used as a euphemism by the opposition to blunt the BJP`s political achievement by insinuating that it was the non-political scientific community that was the true hero. Well, 9th grade physics textbooks show how to build a bomb so I don`t think that it was all that great a `scientific breakthrough`. It was surely a stunning political ploy by all accounts, but more amazing than anything else was how they slipped it by the CIA. The Indians had procured all relevant satellite paths and would stop all activity when Pokharan came under surveillance, they would then resume when they were back in `shadow`. When the CIA heard about the tests from the papers it was a monumental shock to them and a bunch of people took it from the very top.

The sad thing is though, that there will be lots of takers in Pakistan to the theory that the CIA, Mossad & RAW all got together and orchestrated the tests.

In 1998 India`s Defense Minister said that President Clinton should explain why the United States believes that it can, ``trust China with nuclear weapons`` while imposing economic sanctions on India for seeking a nuclear deterrent against what it perceives as threats from its nuclear-armed neighbors, China and Pakistan.

Speaking a week before Mr. Clinton is to leave Washington to visit China, Defense Minister George Fernandes said American policies on nuclear weapons were, ``hypocritical`` because they sought to entrench the arsenals of the five established nuclear powers while shutting out countries like India. Fernandes said, ``I would ask Bill Clinton only one question, and it would be this: Why is it that you feel yourself so close to China that you can trust China with nuclear weapons, just as you can trust yourselves with nuclear weapons, and you can trust the Russians and the French and the British, but you cannot trust India?``

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/Spring2000/Cirincione.htm

The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain

by Joseph Cirincione

This abstract is adapted from an article appearing in the Spring 2000 issue of FOREIGN POLICY magazine.

Developments within Japan illustrate how these two dynamics interact in new and dangerous ways. In 1998, many Japanese were disturbed by how quickly the world accepted India and Pakistan`s de facto status as new nuclear powers. This was not the bargain the Japanese had agreed to when—after a lengthy internal debate—they joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1976. If tensions rise and nuclear-weapon deployments increase in Asia, Japan may well conclude that its security is best served not by relying on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, but by building its own nuclear arsenal. Japanese withdrawal from the NPT would almost certainly trigger the collapse of the treaty. Some in Asia might soon decide to follow Japan`s lead.

Japan will carefully watch South Asia—the area of the world most likely to see a nuclear weapon used in combat. But the Asian reaction chain is more than a South Asian rivalry gone nuclear. India`s nuclear tests and current deployment plans have much more to do with China and the United States than Pakistan. Most experts date the beginning of the Indian nuclear program to China`s 1964 test. China, in turn, says it was forced to develop its nuclear weapons to counter the United States.

Re: AD #63

I was referring to NATO`s tactical, battlefield, nuclear weapons not to the strategic ones. The launch codes for the strategic ones were/are with the political leadership. However, the use authorization for the tactical weapons rests with NATO`s military commanders. Standard NATO military doctrine, back when I used to be interested in such things, was based on using tactical nukes to stop the invading Red hordes. The peaceniks and Soviet-lovers in the US and Western Europe used to have a fit about this but, short of producing more tanks than the Soviets, there was no other military alternative to this.

Reply #: 55

Fuzair

``And the decision to use these tactical nukes was in military hands 0f the nato commanders``

I am not sure if I agree with the above. The launch codes of all nuclear tipped missiles, were under the direct control of the President of the United States and Prime Ministers of Britain and France. All the other members did not have control over the launch.

( I am sure you have heard and seen guy who carries the briefcase, and is always with the US president. In fact protocol demands that even in an elevator the man must accompany Clinton.)

Finally, if you agree that Pakistan is capable of launching nuclear misslies at india, then i have no dispute with you. I was saying the same thing, but someone earlier was advocating that Pakistan would never launch a nuclear weapon so we should not be afraid.

AD

Ref krashid #: 59

When you say ``Good to see that at least your conscience woke up for Muslims of Sinkiang``, it is not MY conscience that needs to be woken up for the Muslims of Sinkiang but yours. Why is it that your/Frangi_Kush`s/Umairr`s hearts bleed for Kashmiri Muslims but not for those who live a couple of hundred miles north in Kashgar and Yarkand? How come Farangi_Kush exults in the antics of Islamic fighters from Chechnya to the Philippines but conveniently omits Sinkiang? I suppose it is because you go to heavens for killing Hindus or Christians but not for killing the Chinese?

Can anyone confirm a news report in the Indian press that about 17 Uighurs undergoing training in Pakistan were taken out and executed by the Pak Army to appease Beijing? This may be propaganda on the part of India but why would they tell the world that Pakistan is lining up with Beijing, its only protector today? If they want to spread rumors, one would think that they would play up only the part about the training that the Uighurs receive but not their execution.

When you say ``I think Kashmiris killed in tens of thousands are also Muslims``, are the Uighurs of Sinkiang kaffirs? For Allah`s sake, they are not even Shias but Sunnis.

It is obvious what the Muslims do. In a democracy, they play out the crap about Islam in danger. In a ruthless society like China, they keep their tails tucked between their legs.

LoC as the border


By Pran Chopra

http://www.the-hindu.com/stories/05172523.htm

Krashid:#58

(most likely in response to my post:#26)

Please read again that the ``subject`` of my post was not Eqbal Ahmed per se,but the double standard applied by these self-proclaimed humanists.

I also do not agree with the use of the term humanist.It automatically bestows power upon those who call themselves humanist to designate others they do not agree with as ``in-humanist`` by default.

We are all humanist,unless we transcend the tenets of humanity.Holding a certain belief & propounding it(no matter how much to our distaste) does not make or break us as a humanist.It is always the deed that should be the test rather than the belief.

There must be thousands upon thousands of Pakistanees whose accomplishments are perhaps going unsung nay denigrated by those who consider that humanism & learning must always be packaged a certain way.

``unn kay pyaron kay maqabir rahay bay naam o namood

Aaj tuk un pay jalai naa kissi nay quindeel``

Sahir Ludhianvi

tr:No fanfare or recognition was accorded to the final rest-places of their beloveds,& to this day no one lit a candle there.



You are mistaken if you think that I detest use of any language.In fact,the more languages one learns,the merrier.My ``deed`` is my evidence.

All I ``harp`` upon is that one(language) should be not at the expense of the other(mother tongue)---especially,if the other is the one on which he/she was weaned.



It would do Prof.Hoodbhoy a lot of good if he is also seen in the company of our learned people sometimes like the maulanas & maulvis(of his choosing).This way,at least some mutually agreed upon programs can be worked out.Those who understand religion have a very good understanding of the scientific method.It is the orthodox & dogmatic scientist who exhibits the ``Wahabism`` of `modernity`.

wassalam

AD Reply#50

India and Pakistan are in a state of ``cold war`` since early sixties. Unless, Kashmir issue is settled with a mutual agreement a No-First-Offence Treaty is nothing but a piece of paper. Even if both countries sign the treaty, it will mean nothing. That is the present state of mind of the people of both countries. If Kashmir issue is solved, Pakistan, has no other claim on any other Indian territory. (Siachin is a non issue as compared to kashmir). i hope vice versa is also true.

Harimau #24

Good to see that at least your conscience woke up for Muslims of Sinkiang.

I think Kashmiris killed in tens of thousands are also Muslims.

Farangi_Kush!

If you know the stature of Eqbal Ahmed for humanism, you should regretv your remarks.What do you speak with whites in USA. English or Arabic. Do you think it is inferior to speak English by them. Do you know who has sowed the seed that you are able to write on this computer. The same Englishmen. Do you think only an Englishman has a right to superior deeds and if a Pakistani performs it he is Ba-Ba blackship. Don`t degrade all the people who think in terms of Humanism.

Pu Li#49

You stated No army person in India would suggest nuke. And in America General Mc Arthur was fired from Army.

I have stopped verifying facts after all lies by Indians because they don`t see in 1955 5000 people died in Assam.

Saying this. If Nuke is used. It is used. If Vajpayee uses Nuke, is it more sacred than General Musharraf using?

Both have the support of majority.

Nuke is not used after referendum or public debate.

Re: AD #50

Of course Pakistan is capable of a nuclear first use and, of course, we would never sign a No First Use promise. This does not make us a bunch of fanatical jihadis, it merely makes us sensible.

The only people who promise No First Use are those who are confident of their overwhelming conventional weapons superiority and are thinking about taking advantage of it. Look back at the Cold War NATO vs. Warsaw Pact stand-off. The Soviets outnumbered the NATO troops and the Russian generals were convinced that they could conquer Western Europe in a matter of weeks if not days. NATO made up for its conventional (perceived) quantitative inferiority by a qualitative superiority AND tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons. And the decision to use these tactical nukes was in military hands (although I am not sure how far down the chain of command the authorization went; theater commanders? Does Ferozk want to jump in here?) not civilian ones.

So nuclear weapons were, rightly, seen as a strong deterrent in keeping the Soviets out of Western Europe. The Russians would always scream how the West`s refusal to sign a No First Use promise ``proved`` its malafide intentions. This is exactly the Indian ploy.

So, weaker forces reserve the right the nuke the invading enemy while the only ones in favor of No First Use are conventionally superior forces that are thinking about using these forces.

So, any Pakistani government that would be willing to sign a No First Use policy might as well go all the way and dismantle the entire nuclear weapons program. And while we are at it, might as well also make room for some Indian ``advisors`` in GHQ and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a la Bhutan and Nepal.

Re: Kant Patel #52

Sorry old boy, you`ve completely lost me. What I meant by moderate was that Zia, unlike some of our bearded friends, was not burning with the desire to annihilate the infidel, finance the World Trade Center bombing, expel all non-Muslims from Pakistan, reconquer India and forcibly convert Hindus, etc, etc, etc. A friend of mine`s father was the head of Iqra (Society for the Promotion of Arabic in Pakistan) and back in 1978 (I think) met Zia with regards to improving the teaching of Arabic at Kakul (the Pakistan Military Academy). My friend`s father asked Zia if he thought he could really carry out the replacement of English with Urdu at all levels of government in Pakistan? (Remember, you are a better Muslim if you speak Urdu than if you speak English, but you are the best possible Muslim if you speak Arabic.) Zia apparently laughed and said that he couldn`t even replace English with Urdu in the Army, what to talk of doing it in the country.

So, if by moderate you mean a man who`ll serve a guest a whisky and soda before excusing himself to go say his prayers, then Zia was not a moderate. Such a man is a liberal Muslim and there are darn few of them around.

Sameer #42:

Does query #1 presumes the chosen-people syndrome?

For # 2, you have broken it down into various constants and variables. Introduce the chosen-people dimension (Re the ‘true’ in your true islam) and they multiply enough to bury any clarity of perception under Ismat Chughtai’s ’lihaf’ of doubts and possibilities.

Agreed, if it is eternal it has to be dynamic. A localized answer would be to search for the ways to restore that dynamism. And on a universal scale the answer would be any systematic advocating of a egalitarian just society. You said it --- or perhaps I read it --- divinely initiated development?

regards,

t

PS: Longest post should be based on original post not a quoted article. The honours should go to either Ferozk or Umairr.

PPS: Pls write. temporal3@hotmail.com

Reply #: 38

FARANGI_KUSH

You wrote:

``

I have a very biased & determined mindset as far as Kashmir & its muslim population(or for that matter muslims of India are concerned)

``

Thanks for your honest reply. Just one more question.

Why, may I ask do you so strongly for Indian muslims ? Do you feel that they don`t like living in India ? Do you feel that they are exploited ?

Just the opposite is true for Indian muslims. They happen to be the most looked after people in India. Where else in the world (include USA, UK any developed, secular country), would you find seperate civil laws for muslims, in a secular nation ?

Which nation pays its muslim minority to go for Haj ?

Which nation overturned the judgement of its Supreme Court, to keep the muslims happy ?

Living in Pakistan, there are only certain things you hear about Indian muslims. You only hear one Babri majsid, and you represent that to be symbolic of all the ill treatment indian muslims have faced since 1947. The babri majsid was more like an assertion by hindus, to show that they too had a spine. (Although I was not happy with the destruction of the majsid since, it was a historical structure. Also, when the temple was razed and made into a mosque, India was not a secular country, so Hindus could not expect anything. However now India was secular, which means muslim places of worship had to be protected.)

I know you are biased, but then the Truth is the truth. I implore you to look at the above objectively, and tell me if Indian muslims really have it bad in India.

Look at our film industry, look at the richest indian in the world, azim premji, look at our government, and you shall find muslims in all walks of life. Special seats are reserved for muslims in India, so that they have the opportunity to grow... muslims institutions like the Aligarh muslim university, Osmania Univ. etc are all funded by government money.

IN fact the govt has appointed a group of eminent muslims to govern muslim institutions.

So I would ask you to think and look objectively before you even consider that muslims in india are mistreated. Cause when you say so, non muslims like myself, feel that all that we have done for our muslim citizens has been in vain. And that really hurts ....

AD

EST Reply #: 47

urstruly

You wrote:

``

The principle objective is to inflict as much ``collateral damage`` on the enemy as possible. A war is an expensive affair and may cause an economy to collapse. The limited-scale border wars between India and Pakistan are fought, principally, keeping this objective in mind.

``

WHAT happens, when the ``objective`` is reached ? When the economy of one advesary collapses, then what ?

I think we should still think about the danger of getting vaporised, and that danger is quite real, given the economic plight of Pakistan.

Some others on Chowk, have already commented that Pakistan is not going to indulge in the arms race, because of their nuclear capability. what does that mean ? Why does Pakistan no sign the NO First Use treaty with India ? Because Pakistan is actually capable of using the Nukes.

And that is what I find most unnerving... what if Pakistan, for want of conventional arms, actually launces a missle at new delhi ?

AD

Fuzair, Umairr

``Was Zia a moderate?`` Well sir(s),as the Prime

Militaryshariff (credit acknowledged to RAS or t(?))would say, it all depends on how

you define `moderate`.Over here in the land of the

purest of the pures, we take Oxford or Webster`s

give it a little Arabian spin, turn into an oppositus, a shed antagonistic, and a somewhat diametric dimensional view. So, to get back to the

yawning question, Yes, the answer is YES! Oh, that

blasted (sorry for the usage) C-130!!!!!!

In this week`s The Friday Times, the news item ``Professor Nayyar of QAU speaks out in his defence`` carries this statement: ``Linking the state of collective paranoia with nuclear weapons, I quoted a serving Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee telling my friend Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy some years ago that he would not mind if Indians in retaliation to a Pakistani use of nuclear weapon destroyed all the Pakistani cities and killed millions, as long as Pakistan could harm India in some manner.``

Would it be possible for Prof. Hoodbhoy to confirm this?

Even more important, this shows that the Pak Army is trying to articulate policy. For a statement such as suggesting the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was fired by President Truman. So, even if this particular statement was not policy but one man`s opinion, the fact remains that in any other society this would have earned the general early retirement from the Army.

No Indian Army officer would even suggest something similar with respect to China.

Please do not call the general`s statement MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD ensures both sides will pull back from the brink. This is madness because the general recognized that India cannot be destroyed totally with the limited number of nuclear weapons in Pakistan`s hands.

Re: AD #44

Was Zia a moderate? As a matter of fact, yes, he was. Don`t forget, Kargil was planned under Zia (not by him, there is a difference) and was apparently shelved by him when Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, then FM, pointed out that no ``limited`` war would be possible and we should only go ahead with it if we were willing to fight an all out war with India. The story goes that it took Zia about 5 seconds to say no to the operation. Also, don`t forget the Cricket Diplomacy episode (the exact details of which escape me: Gymnosophist to the rescue?).

Zia, despite all of his many faults, was a professional soldier and an excellent staff officer. He was very concerned about the professional competence of the Army and under him attention was paid to serious training of junior and middle ranking officers. Its an other matter that a large chunk of this training was Islamic-focussed.

The notion that nuclear weapons will act as a deterrent to war is a myth. A full-scale conventional war may go on for months without using nukes. A limited scale war is always in progress between Pakistan and India. Capturing enemy territory is no more an objective of the war. The principle objective is to inflict as much ``collateral damage`` on the enemy as possible. A war is an expensive affair and may cause an economy to collapse. The limited-scale border wars between India and Pakistan are fought, principally, keeping this objective in mind. Sometimes, the objective is to provide cover to cross-border terrorists (from both sides) to infiltrate into the enemy territory. The cross-border terrorism is another form of warfare. Pakistan supports Kashmiri insurgents and provides training whereas Indians mastermind the ethnic and religious violence inside Pakistani territory. It is impossible to seal the borders since authorities are fully involved in cross-border smuggling on both sides.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of this insanity. The world powers and multinational corporations have vested interests with this situation. It not only helps sell weapons and even food but also keeps subcontinent from becoming a self-sustaining economic entity(ies). As long as the last objective is being achieved the powers that be wont let us turn each other into wastelands. I think, we should not worry about getting vaporized, instead we should keep our focus on producing generation after generation of short-sighted masses, as we are presently doing. Someone has to keep the hamster wheel running.

Reply #: 44

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``AD could you explain your understanding of the concept of India`s tri-platform strategy? Are you familiar with the counter measures that are necessary to create a deterence against first strike? Do you know what the first target is during a first strike? How can a country that has fewer nuclear warheads than its opposition launch a first strike? What would it gain from that? I am not quite sure whether you understand the strategic aspects of the subject you are commenting on.``

Well I think I know what I am talking about, though I am always willing to learn new things.

First strike is initiated, to incapicitate the enemy so badly that he is unable to recover. Newspaper ariticles talked about the fact that New Delhi was under the nuclear range of Pakistani missiles and if a first strike was to be initiated by Pakistan, then the legislative, administrative and judicial bodies could be incapicitated instantly, leaving INdia, with no visible leadership.

You mentioned that Pakistan has fewer war heads than India. But, that does not make any difference, if you cut off the enemy`s head, right.

India`s tri-platform strategy, was based on the fact that even if our land based missile delivery systems were to be incapacitated, we could still launch the same by submarine/ship and areial avenues. The commanders of the nuclear carrying devices, are to act independently, at the first sign of communication break down, ie they have to assume, that New Delhi is down, and hence communication/orders are not going to be recieved.

PLease excuse my spelling, I really messed up the ``corps`` / ``core`` thing :-). But I read that article in Dawn, where a reporter asked for clarification from Mr. Musharraf, on his differences with one of his subordinates.

Since I do not have enough info, about this one, I will not indulge in further discussion. Although one thing you might want to consider, is that during Zia`s time, the military was ``Islamized``. A lot of officers who at one time when to study in the top military colleges in UK and USA, were being eased out and were replaced by fundamentalists. This I read in one of Mr. Cowasjees artilces, from Dawn.

Anyway, I am looking forward to your comments, on my insufficent knowlegde about nuclear strike protocols.

AD

correction to #44: Last line: ``All he has to do is sign the guy`s resignation letter. It only takes five minutes.``

should read, All he has to do is sign the guy`s dismissal letter. It only takes five minutes.

AD: ``Because unlike India, Pakistan refuses to sign a NO-First Use treaty. That means India must be able to withstand a first strike and then be able to retaliate. Simple answer to a simple question.``

AD could you explain your understanding of the concept of India`s tri-platform strategy? Are you familiar with the counter measures that are necessary to create a deterence against first strike? Do you know what the first target is during a first strike? How can a country that has fewer nuclear warheads than its opposition launch a first strike? What would it gain from that? I am not quite sure whether you understand the strategic aspects of the subject you are commenting on. That is quite scary, since nuclear issues should not be decided by emotions. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt until you explain your understanding of nuclear related concepts and strategies. Perhaps I am not seeing the picture correctly.

Pakistan has been trying since the past decade to declare South Asia a nuclear free zone. Pakistan has repeatedly requested India to mutually scale down nuclear programs completely. India has never agreed. Why not just get rid of nuclear weapons all together in South Asia?

India is interested in a first no-use because it has has a much larger conventional military than Pakistan. Also, because India has now realized that it made a huge strategic mistake vis-a-vis Pakistan by turning South Asia nuclear. India has been trying to get Pakistan into stalemate situations militarily, everywhere it can. This is why India is not agreeing to bilateral withdrawls from Siachen. That is also why India wanted Pakistan to explode a nuclear device. It made a gamble that Pakistan would not be able to withstand the corresponding economic sanctions, and implode. However that has yet to happen.

India also wants to continue the arms race in South Asia for the same reason. However, now with a nuclear umbrella, Pakistan does not need to match the conventional military budget increases of India. The current decision by Pakistan not to raise its military budget, even though India raised its military budget, was historic. It indicates that Pakistan is now completely relying on a nuclear deterence, as its first line of defence. India`s increases in conventional budget do not make too much difference anymore. This goes against India`s strategy of getting Pakistan`s into a budgetary arms race (much like the US successfully did with the USSR). So, I have yet to see what India has gained from the nuclear blasts internationally, or with respect to Pakistan. On the whole, it has made Pakistan`s job of defending itself strategically quite a bit easier. In a nuclear conflict, the superiority in tanks, soldiers, and ships the opposing country enjoys, become immaterial. Just like Siachen (and Kargil), the turning of South Asia into a nuclear zone was a useless excercise. What did India gain?

``Correct me if I am wrong, but was Zia a moderate ?

(And i mean it seriously, I am not sure if he was or was not a moderate person, but i have seen someone refer to him as a person responsible for the Jehadisation of Pakistan) ?``

Some answers to your questions. Zia was not a moderate religously or politically. But neither is Vajpayee or the BJP. They are quite a bit more extremist than Zia ever was (at least according to the BJP manifesto and philosophy). Since Zia is no longer alive, and the BJP is running India, who do you think is more dangerous?

The second point to note is that Zia was professionally a general. So he did understand the strategic aspects of nuclear warfare. He could have ordered the explosion of a nuclear device; but he did not. We cannot say the same for Vajpayee, since he made it a point to explode a nuclear device. In Pakistan, religous extremist parties have never even come close to getting power. In India they are running the country, and thus have their finger on the nuclear button. Once again, who is more dangerous in a nuclear scenario; the unelectable Paksitani religious extremist who only has a street level nuisanse value, or the elected Indian religous nationalist party, which has its finger on the nuclear trigger? I am surprise you continue to worry about religous extremism in Pakistan, without looking at what is happening in India.

``From what I hear, one of the core commanders under General Musharraf is considered to be an extremist, and even the general has trouble controlling him.``

This one actually doesn`t deserve a reply. It sounds like a dialogue from the newest set of Indian movies. If by core commander, you mean corps commander, then please point out the name of the general and the corps he is commanding. And why would a COAS, who happens to be running the country as well, have trouble controlling a corps commander. All he has to do is sign the guy`s resignation letter. It only takes five minutes.

Fuzair re:40

And, in fact, India was planning to launch airstrikes in West Pakistan on Dec 6th. Our own strikes proved a marvelous propaganda coup (despite the fact, as you mentioned, that Indian troops were already in East Pakistani territory). (as an aside to Sigalph: I refer to Bangladesh as East Pakistan in all it`s pre-Independence timing.. not because I`m hiding my head in the sand, but merely for accuracy - or would that be anal-retentiveness?).

And remember, documents were found in the bunkers of Kargil illustrating the bold Pakistani plan to sweep down into the Indian plains from the `beach-head` established there!.. sorry, can`t remember the Indian paper that reported that. Wouldn`t that be a cause to worry?

temporal: Believe me I read the entire article, you pasted, by Asghar Ali Engineer. I wish that all the authors who write so eloquently about Islam, must answer ``yes`` or ``no`` upfront to the following two questions.

1) Do you believe that an imlementation of ``real Islam`` definitely means a healthy, prosperous and tranquil society?

2) Do you believe that most of Islamic teachings we beleive in, were responsible for coalescing of feuding Arab tribes leading to magnificient Islamic empires or most of Islamic teachings we believe in were not the by-product of Islamic empire building efforts?

If the answer to both of these question is ``yes``, then it is basically a waste of time to read such articles any further. Unfortunately, most of the Islamic authors would answer ``yes``. Once they make constants out of two variables and simplify the equation to, ``true Islam is directly proportional to benevolence or improvement of the society. Using freshmen mathematics, ``true Islam is equal to a constant times benevolence``. What if the value of the constant is very large? The benovolence would be negligible. Same equation can be rearranged to, ``true Islam divided by benevolence equals to a constant``. For most, due to the divine nature or revealed truth of true Islam, it is also a constant. This makes it a static exercise in a dynamic world. No wonder most ardent Islamic societies are also most static.

It is desired for true Islam to be a variable, a constantly changing, according to the conditions of the nations, ethnicities, neighborhoods, families all the way to each individual. If reinterpretation is the key, and the magnificient and advanced Islamic empires of 1000 years ago proved the benefits of the evolution of Islamic thoughts, then all of Islamic teachings could not be revelations or divine. They mostly developed out of the need of Islamic empires. Now read the question number 2 again. The answer to question 2 should be ``no`` or ``most of Islamic teachings we believe in, were the by-product of Islamic empire building efforts``, before any meaningful arguement in defense of true Islam could be made.

Rumours are flying today that either Pakistan
or India or both, are planning more nuclear
tests very soon.

Ras

Re: AD #35

Ha ha ha! Thats a good one. Pakistan launch a massive preemptive attack on India! Now, don`t get me wrong. We would like nothing better than to launch a massive attack on the Indians but Pakistan has been on the strategic defensive since 1965 for the simple reason that we know we would lose any war we ever fought with India. (No, we didn`t start the 1971 War; Indian and Pakistani troops had been fighting brigade strength actions in E. Pakistan since early November when the Indians started massively supporting Mukhti Bahini insurgents launching cross-border raids; the premptive Pakistani airstrikes on Dec 3rd were a pathetic attempt to try to remedy a disastrous strategic situation and they worked beautifully--for the Indians.)

We are not likely to repeat the mistake of 1965 when we thought we could keep a ``limited`` war confined to ``disputed`` Kashmir. The simple fact of the matter is that you only launch a premptive strike if you think that, with the element of surprise and a lot of luck, you can win a decisive victory. The chances of the Pakistani Army trying to do a coup de main in Kashmir are minimal because we know we would lose. Conventional military wisdom holds that you have to outnumber the enemy 3:1 before you have a reasonable chance of victory. I don`t think we outnumber the Indians three to one in Kashmir.

The Pakistani general officers are not all military idiots and some have even studied the 1965 and 1971 Wars--not enough though since, as far as I know no systematic attempt has ever been made within the Army to analyze the wars and figure out a way to improve the Army`s performance.

I seriously think that was Indian propaganda you heard. The idea of a massive strike in Kashmir is ridiculous in the extreme.

So Prof. Hoodbhoy wants nuclear disarmament. Leave it to a Tamil Brahmin to put the matter in perspective. K. Subrahmanyam, a strategic analyst, is reported to have said, ``What the world needs is for blacks in America to become 51% of the population. Then you will get rid of your nuclear weapons the next day, as South Africa has prepared to do.`` (Reported by George Perkovich in his book ``India`s Nuclear Bomb.``)

AD:#30

I appreciate your desire to find out the `truth`.

Today on the net one can get `fed` or choose the `food` one wants.It might benefit you to read major newspapers/magazines from both sides & form your own opinion.

But you`ll never `win`.The reason is that NO source in the world is un-biased or completely pressure-free.Thank God! that it is so.Otherwise journalists & the book-worm kind would be called most `knowledgeable`.Besides,the dynamics & `fluxability` of the situations alters the mind which was already mulling the `truth`.

May I suggest that you get some inter-acters from the both sides of the Kashmiri border & have them interact on chowk.Have you ever wondered why we do not hear anybody who is residing in Indian Occupied Kashmir.Is there an Indian method to it.Please send us some cut & pastes from Kashmiri muslims if available from the Indian boards.Also,I wish more inter-acters with Singh backgrounds are ssen on chowk.They seem very conspicuous by their absence.



I am perhaps the least qualified person to give you the answers in a very specific manner.I have a very biased & determined mindset as far as Kashmir & its muslim population(or for that matter muslims of India are concerned).My heart beats in unison with theirs & like the needles magnetised we all bow in one direction at the appointed hours.No feeling of nationhood(Ummah) is greater than that in the world.

Like a dynamo,this harnessed magnetic power is just waiting to be primed & generated.

``Nava Para ho ai bulbul,kay ho teray tarranum say

kabootar kay tun e naazuk mein shaheen ka jigar paida``

A L L A M A Iqbal.

tr: O nightingale(poet) sing!! sing so that your melody may make heart of a pigeon(oppressed muslim) as daring as that of an eagle.

___________________________________________________wassalam

In response to AD (Reply # 30)

Dear AD:

I know as much as you do. Of course, the Pakistani official version of Kargil would be different from the Indian official version. What Pakistan calls freedom fighters are called terrorists by India. I suspect, the freedom fighters (Pakistani perspective) did not act alone and they were supported by various public and private agencies/organizations in Pakistan. Having said this, I must reiterate that I believe in the right of self-determination of “all” people of Jammu and Kashmir. Unfortunately, the trouble in Kashmir, particularly during the past eleven year or so, has been escalated by the actions of Indian security forces. Both India and Pakistan must pledge for a peaceful and honorable resolution of the Kashmir problem.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Reply #: 23

Fuzair

YOU WROTE:

``

So why the initial hesitation on our part? Pakistan`s nuclear weapons research program has been at a fairly advanced stage for a long time but there was still some doubt as to whether or not we could (a) carry out a test, or (b) had enough fissile material for more than one or at the most two bombs.

``

From what I know, Pakistan was already perparing to conduct these tests, with or without india, doing so first. The only thing INdia`s test did were to prepone the testing date.

Pakistan does not have the ability to simulate nuclear devices on computers, for lack of data and for lack of super computers. It needed to do at least one of the 2, if it had any hope of developing its nuclear capability. Keep in mind that USA was putting a lot of pressure on Pakistan to sign the CTBT, and Pakistan needed to get the data before it signed the treaty.

AD

Reply #: 17

Fuzair

I have heard something similar too. However, what I heard was that Pakistan was going to launch a massive preemptive attack on Kashmir, that India was not ready to retaliate and hence it did something to buy it some time.

That talk about preemptive strikes on Paksitani nuclear installations, began after India did its tests, and before Pakistan initiated its own tests.

I must admit, that these are based heresay, and I am not sure how accurate they are.

AD

EST Reply #: 25

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``

The reason given was China, although for some reason the Indian govt. immediately started threatening Pakistan, and not China. What was the purpose of that?

``

To get you guys to follow up with your own tests, so that India was not isolated in the world community.

AD

EST Reply #: 25

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``

The religious right in Pakistan will not get access to the nuclear button``

Correct me if I am wrong, but was Zia a moderate ?

(And i mean it seriously, I am not sure if he was or was not a moderate person, but i have seen someone refer to him as a person responsible for the Jehadisation of Pakistan) ?

From what I hear, one of the core commanders under General Musharraf is considered to be an extremist, and even the general has trouble controlling him.

AD

EST Reply #: 25

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``

coming out with a tri-platform launch strategy, with a comprehensive nuclear doctrine. Isn`t it bad enough that Pakistan and India can destroy each other with nuclear missiles. Why come out with two new ways to do it?

``

Because unlike India, Pakistan refuses to sign a NO-First Use treaty. That means India must be able to withstand a first strike and then be able to retaliate. Simple answer to a simple question.

AD

EST Reply #: 25

Umairr

YOU WROTE:

``

Have you ever thought about the fear Pakistanis must be feeling with a person like Advani actually threatening them, after India exploded its nuclear device. I have the feeling the Indian leadership wanted Pakistan to go nuclear more than the Pakistani leadership.

``

I completely agree with you. Mr. Advani has been known to be a little hawkish when it comes to Pakistan. However consider an alternate explaination :

India knew that if Pakistan did not conduct its own tests, India would face a massive boycott from the result of the world. Whatever good its economy was going through, would be lost. With that in mind, does it really sound unreasonable to you, if Advani or Fernandes or anyone else from India, issues some statements which leads Pakistan into conducting tests of its own ?

From your post it seems that Pakistan started its own nuclear prog. after India did the tests. Pakistan was going to conduct its own tests regardless of India. There was no way it could have conducted the tests so soon after India`s tests, if it were not preparing from before.

The Indian tests simply acted as catalysts to something Pakistan wanted to do anyway. And let me tell you another thing... the prespective amongst common people in India is that Paksitan has a right to conduct Nuclear tests if it wants to do so.

As for as living under nuclear fear from India, I could almost assure you that India would not be the first to strike. It has already said so, unlike Pakistan. Another issue that you need to understand is that India is more mature in its foreign policy than Pakistan.

The Kargil episode, which cost your prime minister his seat is the most recent example of how naive Pakistan can be. And comparing Kargil with Schiachen is incorrect, because on the glacier the line of control was not drawn, while in Kargil it was. (PLease think about this last point objectively and you will see the difference).

AD

Bilal, Farangi_Kush, Umairr and all other Pakistanis.... I need to find out one answer from you all.... I keep on forgetting to ask.

What do people in Pakistan know about Kargil ? Do they believe that :

1) They were freedom fighters who acted alone ?

2) They were freedom fighetrs who got help (food, logistical support) from the army/govt/isi ?

3) They were Pakistani army, dressed in civilian clothes ?

I ask this question sincerely, because I really want to know what you guys were fed through the media as opposed to what we were fed ?

AD

Reply #: 24

harimau

Not sure, if what you advocate is prudent. Nuclear deterence works well when both sides have a lot to loose.

In India and Pakistan`s case, it is obvious who that one has a lot more going for it than the other. There is an imbalance between risk and reward. In fact it is almost tempting to contemplate a ``final solution``. And that is what frightens me the most; to think that some uneducated raving mullah could actually unleah the wrath of Allah, on the non-believers.

Only people who can contemplate what is going to happen to Pakistan after such an attack, will really think twice about such an act. But, an angry, old Mullah, who is looking for Houris in the after life, might not be so reflective in his actions. And think about it; such an act is going to affect you and your family directly. Cause one thing is certain, India will retaliate. And the retribution will be massive. given this scenerio, do you really want to have a nuclear Pakistan/India.

Also think about it another way, India has always followed a policy of pragmatism. We are usually lulled into inaction, beacuse we tend to think too much about our actions....and what repercusions it will have on the future. Given this, its comforting to know that nuclear bombs in the hands of India are less likely to be used than if they were in Paksitan`s hands.

AD

my own feeling is that India acted stupidly, and pakistan acted even stupider. India`s stupidity was not in that it tested nuclear weapons: I think that given India`s ambitions and the way the world is structured, it was inevitable. India`s stupidity was in that it aimed too low. Rather than point out the inequities in the world power structure that forced it to move towards nuclearization and act in a mature and dignified manner to seize the moral high ground, it instead took the opportunity to try and scare our neighbours. Where India should have tried our hardest to convince and reassure Pakistan that we had no ambitions against it, and use the opportunity to seek a new and peaceful relationship with it, we chose to threaten. At that critical juncture, this showed a vital lack of statesmanship that made me lose all respect for Advani and his ilk.

Pakistan`s stupidity was that instead of using the moral high ground it had perforce gained to try and not test and use this as a chip to forge strategic relationships with the existing nuclear powers, it decided to take on the world. If it had not tested, India knew enough to be convinced of its nuclear prowess, but to the world it would have appeared as the leader in the anti-nuclear war. It could have had the best of both the worlds, plus a strong bargaining position against India. And then it went ahead with Kargil, and pushed India into a corner by nullifying the chances for peaceful, if cold relations with it.

Peace in the sub-continent is inevitable. Pakistan is realizing that the costs of confrontation with India are too high, while India is realizing that it cannot push Pakistan around. I will remain an optimist till I am proven wrong.

-narain

bahmad #8:

“Wars could only be avoided by developing an enhanced sense of humanity, justice, and peaceful coexistence.”

and on a related note

fairdinkum #21:

“To question Professor Eqbal`s wisdom on his stance against a nuclear subcontinent is to question the values of humanism (humanism in its broadest possible perspective.)”

You are perhaps both talking about liberal secularism without mentioning it by name.

Here is one of the artciles by that dissident Shia activist and scholar Aghar Ali Engineer.

---t


ISLAM AND SECULARISM

Asghar Ali Engineer


Many people feel that Islam is quite incompatible with secularism. Some even maintain that as long as one is Muslim he cannot be a secularist. This is further reinforced by the propaganda by some Muslim countries like the Saudi Arabia that secularism is haram and that all secular nations are enemies of Islam. Maulana Maududi, the founder chief of Jamat-e-Islami also said while leaving for Pakistan in 1948 that secularism is haram and all those who participate in secular politics in India will be rebels against Islam and enemies of the messenger of Allah.

How far is it true? Are Islam and secularism really incompatible? Is Saudi propaganda against secularism justified? Was Maulana Maududi right? These are important questions and we must search for answers. We must bear in mind that in every religion there are different intellectual trends - both liberal as well as conservative. Both quote scriptures in support of their respective positions. Since a scripture or religious tradition for that matter has to deal with complex social situation, one finds differing or even contradictory statements responding to the differing or contradictory situations.

In scriptural hermeneutics one has to take situation in totality and develop certain keys to deal with the evolving situation. The commentators often deal with the situation as if it is static. Social situations can never be static. It continually evolves and changes. The way scriptural statements were understood by early commentators conformed to their own socio-cultural situation. Their hermeneutics should not be binding on the subsequent generations as it will not conform to the changed situation. For every age there are some keys which help us understand the scripture in our own age. Also, a commentator should have a vision of society and this vision evolves from ones own social situation. Allah`s creative power cannot be treated as static any way. The Qur`an also refers to His dynamism when it states ``....every day He manifests Himself in yet another (wondrous) way. Which, then, of your Sustainer`s powers can you disavow?`` (29:55). This Allah manifests Himself every day in new state (sha`n). And the word yaum literally means day but figuratively it can also mean a whole epoch, a period. Taking the word yaum in this sense, the verse will mean Allah manifests His Glories in new ways from period to period, from epoch to epoch.

The early commentators of the Qur`an, on which depends the conservative view of the `ulama, were product of their own socio-religious and socio-cultural situation. In the early days of Islam, particularly in the period of four caliphs succeeding the Holy Prophet, state was very closely identified with religion of Islam. In the Arabia of those days there did not exist even a state before advent of Islam, let alone any laws associated with the state. But a state came into existence when Islam united people of Arabia transcending tribal bonds.

The state needed laws to deal with fast evolving situation. First they took help of the Qur`an and then Sunnah of the Prophet. Even then if they could not solve the problem they held the assembly of the companions of the prophet and tried to solve the problem in consultation with them. Their collective wisdom was often of great help. But it is quite obvious that they heavily drew from their own experiences in the social milieu they lived in. This social milieu also heavily influenced their understanding of the Qur`anic verses. And some Qur`anic verses were integrally related to the situation obtaining there.

The problem really arose when the subsequent generations treated the understanding of the Qur`anic verses by the companions of the Prophet or the early commentators who drew their own understanding heavily from the pronouncements of these companions and their followers (tabi`in). The companions were thought to be - and rightly so - as great authorities as the Qur`an was revealed during their life time and in their presence and who could understand it better than these companions. Most of the subsequent commentators simply referred to these companions and their followers` pronouncements became the only source of understanding the Qur`anic verses. Until today the commentators of the Qur`an are repeating those very ideas and these ideas have become sacred and any deviation is considered heresy by most of the orthodox commentators of the Qur`an.

The Islamic state which came into existence after the death of the Prophet, as pointed out above, also became a model for the subsequent generation though this model was hardly followed even in early period of Islamic history. The Umayyad and the Abbasid empires which came into existence after what is called khilafat-e-rashidah (i.e. the rightly guided period of khilafat i.e. Islamic state) never followed this religious model. Both the empires were based on personal and authoritarian rule and were Islamic only in name. The Umayyad and the Abbasid Caliphs followed their own personal desires rather than the Qur`anic injunctions or the Shari`ah rules. They just symbolically made their obeisance to religion and followed what was in their personal interest. Thus theirs were what we can call a `semi-secular` states.

And the states which came into existence after the Abbasid state were even more secularised except the Fatimid state which was more or less based on the Isma`ili theology. Even the Fatimid Imams had to face serious problems as their Isma`ili followers were very few in their domain and the vast majority belonged to the Sunni faith. Thus they often separated affairs of the state from Isma`ili theological considerations. A separate department of Isma`ili theology (Fatimi Da`wah) had to be established.

Though the Khilafat model was never repeated in the history of Islam, in theory, it remained the objective of all the Islamic theologians to establish the state on the model of early Khilafat and any state which did not follow that model came to be condemned as un-Islamic and it was even more strongly condemned if the state claimed to be secular. Maulana Maududi opposed Jinnah vehemently because his vision of Pakistani state was based on secular concept giving all citizens equal rights irrespective of their religious faith. The Maulana refused to support the Pakistan movement as Jinnah would not agree to set up an Islamic state.

Now the question is whether Islam as a religion is compatible with secularism? Does it aim at setting up an Islamic state and nothing less? Can there be a Muslim country with a secular state? These are some of the crucial questions one has to answer in order to deal with the subject of Islam and secularism. Of course, we should remember that there cannot be uncontested answers. Every answer that we attempt would be, and could be, contested by those with differing viewpoint. Ours is a liberal and inclusive approach and we will, of course, attempt answer from this viewpoint.

Before we deal with the question of Islam and secularism, we would like to throw some light on religion and secularism. Here too there are differing views. There are rationalists and atheists who consider religion and secularism quite contrary to each other. For them the two are quite incompatible. Secularism is a non-religious, if not altogether anti-religious philosophy. A secular political philosophy should have nothing to do with any religious tenets or doctrines. A secular state then would not take any religious beliefs or practices into account while legislating on any issue and in some extreme cases even citizens would not be free to have religious faith and declare it and practice it publicly. Religion, in other words, would be almost a taboo in such a political set up. The former Soviet and Chinese states came close to this model.

Then there is western liberal secular model where religion is not a taboo but is not a basic factor as far as state affairs are concerned. State affairs are conducted quite independently of any religious considerations. In the U.K. too, where Anglican Christianity continues to be state religion and the king or queen of England is considered head of the Anglican Church, religion plays hardly any role in the matters of state. All state legislations are quite independent of the tenets of the Anglican Church. The Church cannot oppose any law passed by the House of Commons and approved by the House of Lords.
In other western countries too positions are more or less similar. The state remains quite independent of the church. In fact church and state have totally independent domains and do not interfere in each others sphere. This western model comes closest to the political philosophy of secularism. The Islamic world has its own features and uniqueness. When we deal with the question of Islam and secularism we have to keep this in mind. It should, however, be kept in mind that the Islamic world is also not homogenised one. One comes across fundamental differences in Islamic countries from Algeria to Indonesia though all of them follow religion of Islam. Commonality of religion does not necessarily mean commonality of social or political traditions. These traditions are as different as their societies and social realities.

Algeria, for example, is a modern westernised state and hence it is undergoing a great religious turmoil as a section of citizens want it to be an `Islamic state` of their vision. Then there are countries like Malaysia and Indonesia with mixed populations though with Muslim majority and they too have secular states. The movements for setting up Islamic states in these countries by the Islamic groups did not succeed. Both these countries have adopted models of polity suited more to a pluralist society. So is the case with Malaysia. Though it is a Muslim majority country it is also pluralist in character and