No More Hiroshimas Anywhere, Ever

In response to bd (Reply # 53)

Dear bd:

Are you aware of the literature on longwave cycles of economic growth and decline? If not, I would like you to read pages 85-88 of Paul Knox and John Agnew’s “The Geography of the World Economy” (Arnold, London, 1989). These pages provide a concise and critical discussion of the contribution of Kondratieff‘s 50-year long cycles. As far as Ravi Batra is concerned, I have reservations about his scholarship. The science of economic forecasting is still in a rudimentary. Ravi Batra has to date failed to come to grips with the complexity of economic forecasting.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

RE: KRashid# 56

Very genuine and intelligent arguments, Sir.

bd #48

It appears that you are some form of economist.

I seem to agree with your idea of Capitalist production and spill over to common man leading to overall progress.

Will the society always remain the same, and is it a law of nature, against which human particularly born poor are destined to go in.

With Capitalist production, wealth is accumulated in one class, with its attendant political power.

Let me give you an example, situation in 1993 in US when I first came in, although the times were not very bad but still in magazines like Times there was an air of Foreigner bashing.

Due to accumulation of Capital, the ruling class are more secure than common man. In bad times, the common man struggles among themselves, manifesting in biases and trampling of other people on the basis of race, creed, color, netionality etc etc. Another manifestation is going to war by soldiers. Why would a person go for the defense of his country meaning Capitalist of his country except by necessity, when he can earn a good living without war and act as a mercenary(save a few heavily indoctrinated people).

If the sources of power mulitiply, and there is enough power to common man, both of which are related to economic strength only then there is a chance of realizing potential of man to full extent.

You are right practically, that is what is reality. But this reality, is very dark.

Like once accumulation of wealth is enough, the power that may be, can work the common man like robots. They will find enough workers to fight war. Enough people as journalist to justify war and killing of people, enough people to prepare machinery of war, creating conditions in the world for war to sell weapons. (The irony of this is that this war business is a very important part of capital development and economy with its attendant benefit to people working in it). Some manifestation is everyday experience in America, which if got worse will be as I am saying above.

I think, I am talking utopia. But human development should be the target. Although Capital generation and human development go hand in hand, but prioritizing human development will take a effective arsenal out of Capitalist armentararium.

Wishful thinking on my part.

In response to bd (Replies # 52)
Dear bd:

Your statement: ``My simple hypothesis is that economic welfare is best achieved within a capitalist framework, a pure meritocracy which is matched with concern and action towards poorer sections of society and the environment.``

Comment: Is this your view? If so, what is the basis of your hypothesis. Isn`t it profit maximization that lies at the heart of capitalism? If yes, how profit is maximized with what consequences? Please explain.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to bd (Replies # 52 & 53)
Dear bd:
Thank your for the citations and various URL`s. I will get back to you if I have any more comments or questions.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal Saheb

Here are the references that I could procure at short notice:

Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan, ``Law of Social Cycles`` in _Human Society_ Part 2 (Calcutta: A.M. Press 1967)

Batra, Ravi, _The Crash of the Millennium_,

1999, Harmony Books; NY?

The book on amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0609605127/o/qid=966479581/sr=8-1/026-6189724-8301252

You may find this url interesting as well, fascinating as a matter of fact.

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/future/j7/SOMERVILLE.html

Another discussion on Sarkar`s Law

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg24282.html

I apologise, I dont have all the papers and references to hand, but if you are still interested, I would be happy to try to procure the original paper as well as Batra`s book and we can discuss further.

Sincerely

bd

Dear Bilal Saheb

Thank you for your comments. I hope I can do as much justice to your comments as you did to mine :)

Point 1&2. Good and Bad consequences of nukes. Bilal Saheb, the good and bad consequences have been discussed in exhaustive detail for the past 50 odd years. Very simply speaking, the decision to abandon nukes (a special class of weapon - this distinction is very important - the reasons are beyond this message) or to keep them is roughly a dynamic between security/international relations needs versus disarmament/liberalism and to a smaller extent, economic factors). Well, I suggest we briefly analyse 3 countries who have ``given - up`` nukes ``voluntarily``. These countries are South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. I would like to distinguish this group of countries with countries who have NEVER taken up nukes or have extremely strong opinions against them, for example Japan, the Nordic Nations, many European nations and to a lesser extent, Canada. So what made the former group of countries, take such a drastic step?. (this also answers your second point). In the 3 countries, the entire social system was overturned, ending of apartheid in case of South Africa, Military Rule and severe economic difficulties in case of Argentina and severe economic difficulties in Brazil. You would also note that each country came out of these massive social dislocations with an extremely charismatic leader in tow, who personally sponsored the removal of nuclear weapons capability or plans. So the answer to your question is, yes, nukes can be removed, but as you can see, only after significant social system disruptions capped with a charismatic / powerful leader.

Translating this to the South Asian scenario, I am afraid I am extremely doubtful that India or Pakistan will have such kind of situation in the immediate future. In India, coalition governments are here to say and the chances of a very powerful NATIONAL leader has gone. Nehru was one, Rajiv Gandhi had power thrust upon him by virtue of his massive majority, but both did not use it. India also didn`t have an economic implosion and wont have it either (just due to the sheer amount of static agricultural sector - IT and services notwithstanding). Which leaves war to trip the dynamic over to the disarmament side. Now for Pakistan. After the Quaid, there has been only ONE strong leader appealing to all sections of society, Bhutto and then to a lesser extent Zia ul-Haq. I do not have to repeat why they would or did want nukes. Economic implosion is a distinct possibility, but I can say, with fair certainty, that this will not happen, specially not on the scale of hyperinflation in the times of the Weimar republic. A nuclear state is NOT allowed to implode economically (Ukraine and USSR). Which leaves war.

I have to admit that the religious factor and the willingness to die/kill for religion puts another wildcard into play. Logically speaking, we come to the conclusion that only after a nuclear war, will disarmament take place. Now, while posturing and sabre rattling is quite common, this should not trip over to nuclear exchange, which is the reason why I am suggesting strengthening of the command and control systems. If we manage to keep the hotheads under control, then hopefully the generational change and economic upliftment of our people will slowly tip the balance. Another point to be considered which is VERY important within the South Asian framework is the relative cheapness of human life. Till we value human life as worthless (or near worthless), killings and nuclear weapons are nothing bad per se`. In any case, how many times you have heard this statement, there are too many people in our countries anyway.

Point 3, a. impossible to attain a sense of global community within a capitalist framework, b. advisability of social change, c. initiating and movement towards a global community.

I agree whole-heartedly on points b and c. I am afraid I would place more emphasis and faith on the very same capitalistic system than any other social system. That could be because of my prior history, training and inclination and I am willing to discuss it in greater length. My simple hypothesis is that economic welfare is best achieved within a capitalist framework, a pure meritocracy which is matched with concern and action towards poorer sections of society and the environment. Call it compassionate conservatism or a centrist political philosophy (I think the UK and Canada have managed to achieve a reasonable balance). Given the WTO machine, lowering of tariffs and import/export duties, trade is mushrooming and economic upliftment does reduce the dangerous aspects of ``nationalism``.

Point 4, I agree with your points totally.

As for Sarkar`s law of social cycles, I will have to check out my research papers, its been a long time since I referred to it, if I find the references, i shall post them here.

Hope to hear your comments.

Sincerely

bd

#49 krashid

So Indians should reorient their thinking? You say this because (a) India is the problem (If only India gave up all will be well), or (b) Indians are the only ones equipped to reorient their thinking because they are more reasonable. Which is it?

In response to bd (Reply # 48)
Dear bd:

Your statement: “Perhaps I could use Rashid`s ``economic`` framework to express my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay in the subcontinent.”

Comment: Given the status quo, the nuclear weapons are very much likely to stay in the subcontinent. However, we need to ask a different set of questions regarding the good and bad consequences of possessing the nuclear weapons. Should we maintain the status quo or should we make a reasonable effort to transform our planet earth into some kind of global “community”? The choice is ours, the task is extremely difficult.

Your statement: “. . . it is my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay until and unless there is a equal or more than equal social reality change. This bigger change can arise, unfortunately, due to the following reasons: 1. nuclear war, 2. conventional war, 3. economic implosion, 4. extremely significant social movement (arrival of a Jinnah or for India, a similar situation as to when Rajiv Gandhi was elected by a stomping majority right after Indira Gandhi`s assassination), etc.”

Comment: It is good that you see the possibility of “change.” Is there any way that we bring social change without the wars and economic difficulties? You are right that we need social movements to overcome some of our difficulties.

Your statement: “Your comment that until and unless India and Pakistan become friends or desire peace, nukes will not be removed. I suggest that there is a intervening stage, that is of strengthening of the command and control systems with a system of hot-lines, graduated response levels and the whole nuclear control structure. . . . Since they cannot be removed, make it as difficult as possible so as to obviate accidental release. In any case, if someone wanted to chuck a weapon of mass destruction NON ACCIDENTALLY (HA!!!), its quite easy to get a CBW weapon in a small aerosol canister and dunk it into the headwaters of Indus, jhelum, ganga, bhramaputra.”

Comment: Destruction is a much easy process than construction. Weapons will be produced as long as the entire global community allows them to be produced. A New World Order is possible if and if the more powerful nations in conjunction with other nations honestly desire to construct a mutually acceptable sense of global community. Is this possible under a predominantly capitalist set of social relation? I doubt very much. Should we try to bring social change? I would argue: Why not? Should we make an effort to slowly and gradually move toward the formation of a global community? Without any reservation, yes (not in a naive sense).

Your statement: “In any case, friendship will NOT obviate the need for nukes nor the desire to retain them.”

Comment: Friendship and the desire for peace are likely to reduce some unnecessary tensions between the two countries. The desire to become a nuclear power is not merely guided by the internal factors. The means of destruction will be produced as long as the global community would allow them to be produced. Are we a global community? Surely not. Am I asking for a major change in our attitudes over a short time period (my life time; our life time)? Definitely not. Finally, I tend to agree with your view that national and international reconciliation is a generational game.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Please inform us more about Sarkar’s conceptualization of social reality.

Anamika #47

There is a term called Empathy, when you feel the situation what other person is.

But for empathy first thing is sinceerity.

Does India want solution of Kashmir or is just hoping to buy time, so that some miracle happen and Kashmir remains with India (it is purely empathetic).

The survival of Vajpayee depends only on Hindu Nationalism. And once Kashmir issue is solved, he has to find other targets in his home country, to continue his politics.

But Indian politics demand secularism to be successful, because confrontation is the anti thesis of progress.

Either BJP has to present as a moderate, which it is slowly trying to do, as induction of Dalit on its higher echeleon and taking actions against Bal Thackeray (resignation of minister accepted by Vajpayee) are some examples.

What is in hold in future nobody knows. Who in 1990 thought that India will regain economically. (I had a talk with foreign office person who came from a meeting in 1992(one of my friends brother). The prediction at that time was for the most bright future for Bangladesh among Pakistan, India, Iran, SriLanka etc).

But one thing is for sure. Indians should reorient their thoughts more realistically. Kashmir will never be solved in Indian constitution.

Dear Bilal and Rashid

Fascinating discussions going on here and I commend you on persevering with this board while the rest of the chowkies have moved onwards. Still, it allows us to have a rather interesting discussion, perhaps not interrupted with ``rude`` messages. Perhaps I could use Rashid`s ``economic`` framework to express my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay in the subcontinent. Economics and Financial theory and modelling assume that markets do not change their fundamental behaviour. In other words, if you model the market/system properly, the residuals are independently and identically distributed across time. Unfortunately, this does not happen. To carry on with the analogy, the impact of computers, or the mobile phone, or e-commerce, or railways, or the Euro, WTO, etc. etc., has had dramatic effects in changing the entire system. Bringing the analogy back to the nuclear weapons and substituting market with social reality, it is my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay until and unless there is a equal or more than equal social reality change. This bigger change can arise, unfortunately, due to the following reasons: 1. nuclear war, 2. conventional war, 3. economic implosion, 4. extremely significant social movement (arrival of a Jinnah or for India, a similar situation as to when Rajiv Gandhi was elected by a stomping majority right after Indira Gandhi`s assassination), etc.

Your comment that until and unless India and Pakistan become friends or desire peace, nukes will not be removed. I suggest that there is a intervening stage, that is of strengthening of the command and control systems with a system of hot-lines, graduated response levels and the whole nuclear control structure (not going into details here - go read a tom clancy novel :-) ). Since they cannot be removed, make it as difficult as possible so as to obviate accidental release. In any case, if someone wanted to chuck a weapon of mass destruction NON ACCIDENTALLY (HA!!!), its quite easy to get a CBW weapon in a small aerosol canister and dunk it into the headwaters of Indus, jhelum, ganga, bhramaputra.

In any case, friendship will NOT obviate the need for nukes nor the desire to retain them. Taking your example in #44, even though France, Germany and GB are in an extremely tight relationship, I would find it extremely surprising if GB and France would get rid of the weapons. Nukes are considered (and excuse me for being crude but very appropriate considering south asian skewed notions of honour and masculinity) national genetalia. Leaving jokes apart, you would very clearly see the relationship between nukes and countries in South Asia. When you add to this potent mix, the lingering miasma of colonialism and imperialism, one gets reminded of the quote, ``The Gulf War would have never happened if Iraq had a nuke``. Interesting enough, it was said by an Indian General. Again, I let you draw the obvious conclusions from this.

The above hypothesis and proposed solution may sound cold blooded, but I am trying to address the short term issue here. Longer terms issues of national reconciliation or even international reconciliation is a generational game. A quick look at Sarkar`s Law of Social Cycles is fascinating. Sarkar proposed that societies have major systemic changes when generations re-cycled every 30 years or so (he used the classical Hindu caste system - Brahmins - kshytriyas ....) to illustrate his thesis. There was a book published on this, just before the 1987 crash, and the author used Sarkar`s law to great accuracy. Given his in sample and out of sample predictive accuracy, he became quite famous back then. Right now, we have the genetalia waving crowd in control right now, once it moves down / up to the ``business`` class, Rashid`s hypothesis should kick in. (30 years??? - moves to mars)

On a separate note, and this is rather important, Harmonic #21, could you please give me the references to your reply? I have tried to search for the decrypted messages or other references, but perhaps I am not looking at the right place. I would highly appreciate if you could provide those references. It seems to be akin to the Thule incident and the American / Danish reaction thereof.

Sincerely

bd

In response to Shankar (Reply # 43)
Dear Shankar:
I agree with the spirit and content of your post. I, however, think that the problem is more at the level of the state than the common people. If this statement has some merit, we need to express our views as clearly and loudly as possible to provide necessary resistence against the follies of our so-called leaders and the state apparatus.
Although the state of affairs between India and Pakistan may hurt Pakistan much more than India, the future of India appears no less bleak to me given the size of her growing population.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to anamika (Reply # 45)
Dear Anamika:
With reference to the plight of over a billion people in South Asia, you maintain “[it] is hard to think of the entire mass of people unless their lives are in immediate danger. But by then it may be too late.” You indeed are right because time is flying and both India and Pakistan are engaged in a policy of mutual self-destruction. This policy, however, may prove more destructive for Pakistan than India.
You also maintain that “we have had wars and, IMO, will have more in the future. Kargil was a war and could easily have led to a wider conflict.” I don’t doubt the power of your observation. But, aren’t you diagnosing the problem without any “apparent” concern for the solution? What kind of future do “we” want to have for a region that provides “us” some sense of identity?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

#39 bahmad

It is hard to think of the entire mass of people unless their lives are in immediate danger. But by then it may be too late. Anyway, we have had wars and, IMO, will have more in the future. Kargil was a war and could easily have led to a wider conflict.

#42 krashid

You haven`t given me a straight answer. You are simply justifying what happened. Why don`t you pretend to be an Indian for a moment and tell me how you`d see things. This is what needs to happen if enemies are ever to reconcile.

I believe you are also unreasonable in expecting the Indian government to drive towards a peace plan. They made a start and that has now been scuttled. Why doesn`t Pakistan say, we are willing to give independence to those areas that want it - let`s have a plebiscite. The Pak view has always been that Kashmir belongs to it. No big moral concerns there. Look at what Israel and the Palestinians are doing. They started talking and save the hardest problems for last. The momentum is unstoppable. Even Israelis acknowledge now that some sort of accomodation with the Palestinians over Jerusalem will have to be worked out.

Let`s look at what Musharraf wants on the other hand. He has an one-point agenda: Kashmir should go to Pakistan. No talks are possible when your intentions are clear from the outset. I am more liberal than most Indians on Kashmir. Even I say no talks with Pakistan unless something changes there - either a change of leadership or their position regarding the agenda.

If the current intrasigence continues and if the jihadists continue to be unleashed on India, a war will be inevitable.

In response to krashid (Reply #: 41)
Dear Rashid:

Your statement: “I [Rashid] am simple minded. 2 + 2 = 4.”
Comment: There is nothing wrong in being simple. It constitutes a part of our reality and our way of comprehending reality. Reality, in my view, is both simple and complex. We cannot, therefore, be simple minded “only” if we wish to understand the complexity of our existence.

Your statement: “What is meant by social relations.”
My response: The notion of social relations seeks to capture the relationship between various segments of our reality (such as class relations or power relations). Hence, we human beings live our lives in relation to all other objects around us (which include other human beings too). This suggests that our actions are in part a product of our relationship with others. In the case of India and Pakistan, the nature of our relations are predominantly a product of our mutual dealings/actions. Peace cannot be achieved between India and Pakistan unless both parties seriously and unceasingly desire it (perhaps at all costs).

Your statement: “I see everything starting with economics.”
Comment: Social reality, even in a simple/abstract form, cannot be explained in terms of economy (or material reality) only. We need to understand the complex interrelationships between the state, economy, and civil society.

Rashid, we need to consider why we South Asians (and the neighboring countries) have not yet been able to form a supranational alliance of the kind of the European Common Market.

Rashid, we all need to read more, sort out our thoughts, and adopt a more consistent approach for dealing with our reality. I am, nonetheless, not sure if I ever tried to put you on spot (about your inadequacies) as you seem to allude.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal & KRashid,

I feel our biggest impediment to peaceful coexistence is our failure to get past what happened in our history. There is a lot of bad blood & both sides are guilty.

When you see movies like ``Braveheart`` or ``Patriot``, one sees that there was a lot of bad blood between the Scotts & Americans against the British. Today ,they not only coexist peacefully, but are good friends. But then they have the advantage of the passage of time & generations. I hope with the passage of time & generations our countries will learn to live with each other peacefully.

In this nuclear age, though, I wonder if we have the luxury of the passage of time.