Eqbal Ahmad: Post - Pokhran Days

Here's a tale of two Pakistani self-haters and defeatists who enjoy every moment of hating themselves and their country: Dr. Pervaiz Hoodbhoy and Asma Jahangir.
Whenever there is a writing project in any newspaper anywhere in the world where they want to bash Pakistan using a Pakistani name, they call one man in Islamabad: Dr. Hoodbhoy. He spews more venom against Pakistan than Hamid Karzai and Bal Thackery - an Indian Hindu terrorist - combined.
Asma Jahangir, another defeatist who went to India to shake the hands of Narendar Modi, the killer of 2500 Indian Muslims, has just volunteered to Hindustan Times to confirm that Mumbai terror was a Pakistani conspiracy [see below].
Here's a letter sent by a Pakistani young man to Dr. Pervaiz Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani self-hater, and received no reply. And then watch Asma Jahangir's video.
Recommendation: We need to start a witch-hunt in Pakistan to cleanse our academia and public life of such self-haters and defeatists who poison the minds of young Pakistanis about their homeland. Such academics and human rights activists should not be allowed to hide behind the freedom of expression.
TO: Dr. Pervaiz A. Hoodbhoy
Professor and Chairman
Physic Department
Quaid-e-Azam University,
Islamabad.
E-mail: hoodb...@lns.mit.edu

NATION WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU

Dear Dr Pervaiz Hoodbhoy Sahib,

I have been reading your articles and research reports and watching your interviews on different TV channels on different issues. I have tried to go through your articles again and again to satisfy myself that whatsoever you are speaking in the name of freedom of speech is just an ordinary criticism and could be a difference of opinion.
But I regret to say that I am unable to do so. In dozens of your articles and interviews you have never ever said a single positive thing about Pakistan and have always tried to portray a false picture of Pakistan, according to which Pakistan is a failed state. Whether it's the issue of extremism, or Pakistan's nuclear assets, or Pak-India relations, or if there is an issue of western and Indian allegations, you have always come up with your nasty ideas to prove to the world community that whatever the enemies of Pakistan are saying, you are more than happy to say it from them, using a Pakistani identity, which is an act for which you feel no shame.

I am not sure if Pakistanis have seen your massive one-man campaign against Pakistan where you have alleged that we are not capable of retaining our nuclear assets. Or, now, after the Mumbai attacks, when even the cheapest of Pakistani politicians have shown some kind of patriotism and unity for the sake of Pakistan, at this crucial time again you are trying to prove what the enemies of Pakistan are trying to do. I fail to understand what motivates you except gaining popularity in West or even in India.

India is a so-called democracy where low caste Hindus, Christians and Muslims are burned alive [a ritual unique to India, doesn't happen anywhere else], where Hindu extremists are in the government, where groups like Bajrang Dal are trained in Indian Army schools. But India seems like Switzerland after reading one of your articles on India, especially the one you wrote recently after a visit to India. India's terrorist and rogue intelligence agency, RAW, which is funding and supporting separatist movements in our tribal belt and in Balochistan, continues to be an untouchable issue for you. What really is important for you is to put all your efforts toward portraying a negative Pakistan.

I give you an example from the history which you will find self explanatory in reference to our current scenario.

I am not sure if our enemies will impose a war on Pakistan or not but at this crucial stage all your efforts to distort Pakistan's image is not going to remain unnoticed and the nation will never forgive you for what you have done.

Wassalam.

Waqas Ahmed
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

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.