Eqbal Ahmad: Post - Pokhran Days

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