South Asia Peace Wire

Kashmir Times, 24 December 2009

Editorial: REDUCTION OF TROOPS

Even though the union defence minister A K Antony has announced the withdrawal of 30,000 troops and the issue has become a matter of politicking for various parties from New Delhi to the troubled Jammu and Kashmir, there is still no clarity about whether there indeed is even a marginal withdrawal of forces from the state. The army officers in the Northern Command have outrightly rejected these claims and maintained that any movement is only a part of routine relocation from one place to another. Reports have suggested that this relocation has happened over a period of months. It is, however, not known whether the troops relocated from specific areas have been replaced by fresh troops of the army or other security forces. Whatever be the case, the position on the ground does not reveal any change or relaxation. If indeed 30,000 troops have moved out from the heavily militarised state, the fact that despite shifting out such huge number of army personnel every part of the state continues to be as militarised as before only goes to prove how disproportionately large the presence of troops in Jammu and Kashmir is, impacting the social, economic and political fabric of the state. The fresh controversy about whether the troops have been moved out or not stems from a lack of transparency about the exact number of troops operating in Jammu and Kashmir.

Whether or not there has been a constant rise in the number of para-military forces in the state in the last couple of years, the grim reality of increasing cantonments, bunkers and camps of the security forces, many of them virtually extending into villages and even people's homes, betrays a persistent policy to militarise areas and not de-congest them. Without bringing authentic facts on the table, the government has always been in absolute denial of the acute militarisation of the state. Yet, the signs are all too evident. Jammu and Kashmir, which is not the only border state in the country, is heavily burdened by the presence of defence forces, BSF, CRPF and other para-military forces and multiplying the local police battalions, besides arming the SPOs and VDCs. Additionally all the central forces enjoy unlimited powers and unlimited impunity due to prevalence of draconian laws and the police force too enjoys extra-constitutional powers, all in the name of security. This is a paradox in the face of the fact that even as per government own admission, as well as the statements of various security agencies, there is a substantial decline in militancy related violence in Jammu and Kashmir. All these are signs of militarisation that is so badly impacting the life of the civilians, denying a healthy democratic space and the much needed civil liberties which stand threatened with so many men in uniform virtually breathing down the necks of the people, especially in the rural areas.

A natural follow up of the decline in militants and militancy related violence should have been a reduction in the presence of troops and curbing the unlimited powers given to the men in uniform. Even a proposed peace process and engagement with the separatists should have been preceded by a move to demilitarise the state. This could have been one of the major confidence building measures besides addressing the human rights issue and imperative for greater inclusion of people. Instead, the powers of the security forces and the police have been strengthened to the extent that the forces have become the unquestioned holy cows with no accountability for their acts of omission and commission. Jammu and Kashmir today is one of the most militarised zones in the world and this cannot either be denied or solely attributed to the fact that this is a border state. This state alone does not share its troublesome borders with Pakistan. There are several other states that do. Besides, the forces do not simply man the borders, they are present in every nook and corner of the state, the ratio working out to one armed man in uniform for every twenty five persons. Such a scenario can be a major stumbling block in the peace process. If security scenario has improved, there is no reason why a phased withdrawal of forces should not begin. And if security is still quoted to be the pretext, there are several areas in the country which intelligence reports warn are under severe threat of terror attacks. Then going by this plea, many parts of rest of the country including the metropolitan cities too should have been militarised. If the security agencies can manage to thwart security threats with minimal security apparatus in these cities, then why should Jammu and Kashmir be treated any differently?

Dawn, 12 November 2009

by Jawed Naqvi

It may seem sinister but it is commonplace. Frenzied soldiers shoot their fellow officers, also comrades, all the time. Or they desert armies they otherwise served loyally. The more senior officers plot military coups.

Sven Kempe and his wife Ann-Charlotte would favour desertion any day to bloodletting. In the 1960s, the Swedish couple ran a virtual asylum — though they called it a commune — for American army deserters. It was located in a scenic spot in Uppsala, not far from Stockholm.

Sven belongs to a wealthy industrialist family and heads a textiles business in Sweden. His burly frame and capitalist pedigree mask a gentle, giving human being. He speaks with nostalgia about the days when a successful anti-war movement raged from Europe to the United States. And he became an important part of it. The commune they ran won the couple many friends from far and near.

Among them was their last week’s host in Delhi, a common friend at whose farmhouse I met the couple over a lazy late afternoon lunch. My interest was mainly to find out what opinions the more neutral observers had managed to form of Major Nidal’s murder of 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. What I got in return was a glimpse into the tragic story of the US army’s Major Jerry Bhagwan Das.

Bhagwan Das was an Indian orphan who somehow found himself cleaning ships in Thailand. That was when an American naval officer and his childless wife spotted him. They adopted the boy and brought him up as an American patriot who would join the army. Jerry, as he came to be called, was so good at his work that he was inducted as a member of an elite force in Vietnam. He killed many Vietcong guerrillas and civilians; too many, as he later told his friends.

During an R&R break in Germany in 1969, Jerry escaped to Stockholm, which had become a sanctuary for deserting soldiers from the US army. Often when the soldiers subsequently wanted to return home, even when they were prepared to face the stigma and punishment (as pugilist Muhammad Ali did for dodging the draft) they were set humiliating conditions. They had to say their return was prompted by their mistreatment in Sweden, which was a lie.

At the commune, Jerry befriended a Swedish girl and both were happy together. Then, very quietly, almost stealthily, he one day doused his body with kerosene and set himself on fire. His friends rushed to save Jerry but he perished in hospital after a brief struggle. Sven doesn’t quite know why the young officer took his life but their horrific deeds in Vietnam did haunt many of his guests from the world’s most powerful army.

Sven and Ann-Charlotte celebrated the desertion by the soldiers because they were opposed to the Vietnam War. If asked, they would also consider desertion the only proper way for the licensed killers to atone for their deeds. The alternative is too forbidding to contemplate. There must be so many Major Nidals lurking inside the most disciplined armies across the world. They are just waiting to be provoked.

It would be interesting to find out if there were peaceful ways for Major Nidal Malik Hasan to say ‘no’ to a proposed assignment in Afghanistan without being branded a deserter, an option he did not choose. This is assuming that he is not an Al Qaeda-like fanatic, which he is being made out to be.

Al Qaeda and Taliban, though they lend themselves easily to the description, are not the only fanatics in the business of bloodletting. Not too long ago it was routine for violent military coups to be staged at the behest of powerful democracies. A lot of innocent blood was spilt and still continues to be wasted.

Desertion and killing of fellow officers has a history. Patriots in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh rejoice in the great sepoy mutiny of 1857 against the British. On their part, the British bribed or coerced local chieftains to switch sides not always without a bloody mess. There is at least one familiar instance of a Gandhian leader who exhorted the military to revolt, albeit peacefully, against a rival civilian despot.

The exact phrase that Jaiprakash Narayan used in urging India’s security forces to rebel against Indira Gandhi’s authoritarianism is a matter of dispute. But bereft of the semantics involved it was nothing short of a call to mutiny. However, Mrs Gandhi found a good ruse in the exhortation and suspended democracy before she realised her mistake and called elections, which she lost.

In India, it is not infrequent to hear of regular soldiers and paramilitary troopers, particularly in the punishing terrain of Kashmir, turning their guns on fellow officers. The Sikh rebellion in Punjab of the 1980s shook the Indian army to its core but that was not the end of the matter. It was Mrs Gandhi’s vetted security guards, in the sanctum sanctorum of the state’s authority, who murdered her in revenge for a military assault on the Golden Temple in Amritsar.

Pakistan of course lost a large chunk of its army when many of its officers became embroiled in the political turmoil that led to Bangladesh. From the 1951 Rawalpindi case, which involved officers and communist leaders in a plan to overthrow the state, to a more eerie assassination plot against Gen Musharraf, Pakistani soldiers have had their share of infidelity and bloody-mindedness. Reported desertions by Pakistani soldiers during their ongoing war with the Taliban were probably a more agreeable statement to make than the unimaginable horrors of bloody subversion from within.

Of all the desertions that took place in history, the First World War saw possibly the highest toll. As the seemingly endless war went on, desertion and mutinies became an increasing problem. To deal with the problem, commanders began tying deserters and mutinous troops to poles where they would be executed by firing squad. The British shot 320 men and the French 700. The Germans shot about 50, according to one estimate.

While it will deal with Major Nidal according to its sovereign laws, the United States has been less than generous with rebels even from rival armies. It induced large-scale desertions from the Iraqi army following their 1990-91 conflict. Around 4,000 Iraqi deserters were sent back to Iraq against their will in 1992 only, according to a Canadian document.

“Some countries of resettlement, such as the US, were sensitive about the security risk involved in the operation and were conducting extensive background checks for criminal elements among the candidates for resettlement,” the document by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada stated. “For example, the US decided to refuse all Iraqi army officers.” Sven and Ann-Charlotte still have a job to do. They can start refurbishing their fabled commune.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

jawednaqvi(at)gmail.com

The Times of India, 7 October 2009

'To end Indo-Pak dispute, make Siachen a peace park'
   
Having seen plastic bottles, polythene covers, kerosene cans, human waste and artillery shells strewn around on the white snow and 800 army personnel, including his friends, fighting frostbite and guarding against unknown enemies, Harish Kapadia has started a new mission a peace park at Siachen. The 65-year-old mountaineer tells Sruthy Susan Ullas about his passion:

Why do you want to set up the peace park?

Peace parks are solutions for regions of dispute between two countries. There are 170 such parks around the world today, where the area is given for rejuvenation and for tourists to visit. The best way to end the Indo-Pak dispute is to withdraw the army from the land and make it a peace park. The park will come up at the Sino-Indian border to be extended till the Siachen.

Besides resolving disputes, what is the objective of setting up this park?

It is the recent degradation of the land that requires immediate attention. The pollution level will come down once human habitation goes down.

How about the pollution in other areas of the Himalayas? Don't mountaineers also play a role in it?

In other areas, villagers themselves are responsible for the pollution rather than the mountaineers. Their changing lifestyle is becoming an increasing menace. If a family was using one bottle of kerosene earlier, now it uses one can. They throw the empty can down the nullah, which joins the rivers. This year there is a dangerous water shortage in the mountains. All the streams have dried up due to the absence of afternoon rains and lack of snowfall. The rivers are of not much use to villagers as they flow down into the valleys and villagers depend on the streams.

How do you plan to change these?

In order to sensitise villagers, a three-day workshop was organised for them in the last week of August with experts from Canada training them. I go up to the mountains regularly to keep an eye on the changes. Mountains have been a part of my life since i was 14. It disturbs me when i see them in such a pathetic stage. I'm travelling across the world and speaking on the need to set up the peace park. I began with the Cannes film festival and covered over a hundred meetings. I write about it regularly in the Himalayan Journal. I've also spoken to the environment secretary and government officials.

What is the hindrance to the park project?

The real problem is the lack of trust between the two countries. Given the current political scenario in Pakistan, we do not even know who to talk to. There have been talks earlier, but nothing worthwhile has come out of them because of the zero trust.

by Zia Mian | July 27, 2009

Foreign Policy In Focus   
http://www.fpif.org/

The contradictions and confusions in U.S. policy in South Asia were on full display during Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's recent visit to India. U.S. support for India, which centers on making money, selling weapons, and turning a blind eye to the country's nuclear weapons, is fatally at odds with U.S. policy and concerns about Pakistan.

By enabling an India-Pakistan arms race, rather than focusing on resolving the conflict and helping them make peace, the United States is driving Pakistan toward the very collapse it fears.

America's New India

In an op-ed in The Times of India just before the start of her visit, Clinton laid out U.S. interests in India. The first item on Clinton's list was "the 300 million members of India's burgeoning middle class," that she identified as "a vast new market and opportunity."

The emerging Indian middle class is large — for comparison, the current total U.S. population is also about 300 million — and greedy for a more American lifestyle. But the focus on India as fundamentally a market for U.S. goods and services, and a source of cheap labor for U.S. corporations, marks a remarkable shift. The United States and other western countries have traditionally seen India as the home of the desperately poor, deserving charity and needing development. But no more. Clinton's article made no mention of India's poor, which the World Bank recently estimated as including over 450 million people living on less than $1.25 a day.

India is also seen as a new emerging power of the 21st century, one that can be an ally of the United States and help it balance and contain the rise of China. Under the Bush Administration, in 2004, the U.S. and India signed an agreement called the "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership." To make India a fitting strategic partner, a senior State Department official later explained the U.S."goal is to help India become a major world power in the 21st century," and left no doubt what this meant, saying "we understand fully the implications, including military implications, of that statement."

India is seeking both to modernize and expand its military forces. It has dramatically increased its military budget, up over 34% alone this year. India now has the 10th-highest military spending in the world. It's becoming a major market for U.S. arms sales. U.S. weapons makers Lockheed Martin and Boeing have already racked up deals worth billions of dollars. But the real bonanza is still to come. India is said to be planning to spend as much $55 billion on weapons over the next five years.

But the big news of the Clinton visit was the announcement of an India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue. This will include an annual formal meeting of key officials, co-chaired by the secretary of State and India's external affairs minister, and including on the U.S. side the secretaries of Agriculture, Trade, Energy, Education, Finance, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and others. But given the difference in the power and range of interests of the two states, this will be no dialogue of equals. The process is intended to align Indian interests and policies in a wide range of areas with those of the United States.

Nuclear India

In her press conference with India's minister of external affairs, Clinton said, "We discussed our common vision of a world without nuclear weapons and the practical steps that our countries can take to strengthen the goal of nonproliferation." But there was no mention here of India's nuclear buildup, or of the United States asking India to slow down or to end its program. In fact, one would never guess from Clinton's remarks that India even had a nuclear weapons program. She seemed interested only in the prospect of U.S. sales of nuclear reactors to India worth $10 billion or more.

India is one of perhaps only three countries still making material for new nuclear weapons. The others are Pakistan and Israel (with North Korea threatening to resume production). India is building a fast-breeder reactor that is expected to begin operation in 2010 and is outside International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It could increase three- to five-fold India's current capacity to make plutonium for nuclear weapons.

India seeks to become a major nuclear power. On July 26, it launched its first nuclear–powered submarine. India plans to deploy several of these submarines. Last year, it carried out its first successful underwater launch of a 700 kilometer-range ballistic missile, Sagarika, intended for the submarine. India joins the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China in the club of those owning such nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. Israel is believed to have nuclear-armed cruise missiles on diesel powered submarines.

India is also developing an array of land-based missiles. In May 2008, it tested the 3,500 kilometer-range Agni-III missile, which was subsequently reported to have been approved for deployment with the army, and is working on a missile with a range of over 5,000 kilometer. In November 2008, India also tested a 600 kilometer-range silo-based missile, Shourya. In 2009, India carried out several tests of its cruise missile, Brahmos, which the army and navy are inducting into service.

The U.S. silence on India's nuclear weapons and missile programs is all the more telling, given that it was the Clinton administration that proposed United Nations Security Council resolution 1172. In 1998, this unanimous Security Council resolution called on India and Pakistan to "immediately stop their nuclear weapon development programs, to refrain from the deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and any further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons." The Bush administration ignored it. It seems the Obama administration will too.

Pakistan v. India

Pakistan was noticeable for its near absence from Clinton's agenda in India. It came up only in the context of the need to fight terrorism. Forgotten was the brute fact that India and Pakistan are straining harder than ever in their nuclear and conventional arms race. A Pakistani diplomat responded to the Clinton visit to India by telling The Washington Post that "What Hillary is doing there is probably again going to start an arms race." This race drives Pakistan toward collapse, the very thing the United States fears.

Pakistan is buying U.S. weapons as fast as it can, some paid for with U.S. military aid, with arms sales agreements worth over $6 billion since 2001, including for new F-16 jet-fighters. China, an old ally, is also supplying the country with jet fighters and other weapons. Pakistan is also boosting its nuclear program. It's building two new reactors to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. It continues to test both ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to carry nuclear weapons.

The principal U.S. concern about Pakistan, aside from the country falling apart and its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamists, is the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and in the border areas of Pakistan. It has been telling Pakistan to focus its military forces and strategic concerns on this battle, which requires moving more soldiers away from the border with India. The generals who command Pakistan's army were bound to resist such a redeployment. They worry about the new U.S.-India strategic relationship, and what it may mean for them when the war on the Taliban is over and the United States no longer needs Pakistan.

The Pakistani army, which rules the country even when civilians are in office, will not easily shift its view of India. The army and those who lead it see the threat from India as their very reason for being. The army has grown in size, influence, and power, to the point where it dwarfs all other institutions in society and would lose much if there was peace with India. But there is a personal dimension as well. The partition of the subcontinent 62 years ago that created Pakistan is in the living memory of many who make decisions in Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf, who was chief of army staff before he seized power in 1999 and ruled for nine years, was born in India before partition. General Musharraf, along with the current chief of army staff, General Kayani, and others in Pakistan's high command, fought as young officers in the 1971 war against India. The war ended with Pakistan itself partitioned, as East Pakistan became the independent state of Bangladesh, with India's help, and 90,000 Pakistani soldiers captured by India as prisoners of war.

As Graham Usher notes in the new issue of the Middle East Report, before becoming president, Barack Obama seemed to understand that resolving the conflict between India and Pakistan was critical to dealing with the problems in Afghanistan and with the Taliban. In 2007, Obama claimed "I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban." There is little evidence that this view has yet informed U.S. policy.

The Reality of Pakistan

In their rush to make money and to preserve American power in the world by crafting an alliance with India, U.S. policymakers seem to have averted their eyes from the reality that stares them in the face in Pakistan. In March 2009, the Director of National Intelligence summed up the situation in Pakistan:

    The government is losing authority in parts of the North-West Frontier Province and has less control of its semi-autonomous tribal areas: even in the more developed parts of the country, mounting economic hardships and frustration over poor governance have given rise to greater radicalization…Economic hardships are intense, and the country is now facing a major balance of payments challenge. Islamabad needs to make painful reforms to improve overall macroeconomic stability. Pakistan's law-and-order situation is dismal, affecting even Pakistani elites, and violence between various sectarian, ethnic, and political groups threatens to escalate. Pakistan's population is growing rapidly at a rate of about 2 percent a year, and roughly half of the country's 172 million residents are illiterate, under the age of 20, and live near or below the poverty line.

Things have worsened since then. The Taliban is now seeking to escape U.S. drone attacks and major assaults by the Pakistan army in the Tribal Areas by taking refuge in the cities. There are already no-go areas in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, where the Taliban controls the streets. Meanwhile electricity riots have exploded in cities across the country, with mobs attacking public buildings, blocking highways, and damaging trains and buses. Each day seems to bring news of some new failure of the state to provide basic social services.

The Obama administration believes that an increase in U.S. aid to Pakistan can help solve the problem. The Kerry-Lugar bill (the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act) approved by the Senate in June would triple economic aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year for five years. But as the Congressional Research Service noted in its recent report on Pakistan, the United States has given Pakistan about $16.5 billion in "direct, overt U.S. aid" up to 2007. More of the same offers little hope for change.

A basic reordering of U.S. priorities in South Asia is long overdue. The first principle of U.S. policy in the region should be to do no more harm. This means it has to stop feeding the fire between India and Pakistan. Only an end to the South Asian arms race can begin to undo the structures of fear, hostility, and violence that have sustained the conflict in the subcontinent for so long. The search for peace may then have at least a chance of success.


Zia Mian is a physicist with the Program on Science and Global Security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus.

[The above article is now also available at:  http://www.sacw.net/article1068.html ]

India: Steep 34% hike in defence budget - Up to $29 Billion

(The Times of India, 6 Jul 2009, 1400 hrs IST, PTI)

NEW DELHI: With an aim of fast-tracking procurement of defence equipment, the government steeply hiked the budgetary allocation for defence to Rs

1,41,703 crore, a 34% increase over the previous fiscal.

The increase in real terms amounted to Rs 36,103 crore over last year's allocation of Rs 1,05,600 crore, and is apparently intended to speed up procurement of defence equipment and plug the security gaps exposed by the November 26 Mumbai terror attacks last year.

The 34% increase is substantial compared to the increase of only 10% effected in last year's budget
over Rs 96,000 crore allocated in 2007-08.

In fact, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee had allocated the same amount for defence in his interim budget presented in Parliament on February 16 before the Lok Sabha polls.

Despite the hike this year, India's defence spending is still at about 2% of the GDP, compared to China's 7% and Pakistan's 5%.

The defence ministry had returned nearly Rs 7,000 crore as unspent money
from its last year's capital outlay of Rs 48,007 crore as its plans to procure light utility helicopters and 155mm artillery guns did not fructify.

----

India Boosts Defense Spending To About $29 Billion

(http://www.easybourse.com/ July 6th, 2009 / 11h58)

NEW DELHI (AFP)--India on Monday confirmed a huge increase in military spending and offered sweeping benefits to the police, linking the ongoing drive to ramp up national security to economic development.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee hiked the defense budget for the financial year to March 2010 by 24% to INR1.42 trillion (about $29 billion) to partly fund a program to modernize India's 1.23-million-strong military.
The size of the increase had been flagged in a pre-election interim budget in February.
An attack by Islamist militants in Mumbai in November that left 166 people dead also prompted Mukherjee to grant additional funds for the paramilitary and state police.
New Delhi blamed "official agencies" in Pakistan for the carnage in Mumbai, but conceded the 10 militants who came undetected by the sea took advantage of India's antiquated maritime security and gaps in intelligence networks.
In addition to the defense budget, Mukherjee sanctioned an additional $143 million for the paramilitary and said he will also spend $456 million more to strengthen border security during the current fiscal year.
"Significant augmentation in the strength of the paramilitary forces is being done," Mukherjee said, adding the government will build 100,000 houses for personnel to "boost morale."
In a bid to stem discontent of retired soldiers from spilling into the ranks, he promised an attractive pension program for 1.2 million ex-military personnel, some of whom in recent months had taken their agitation to the streets.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the security modernization program was crucial to the unhindered development of Asia's third-largest economy.
"Law and order is a prerequisite to sustainable development...so the modernization of our intelligence is a must," Singh told Doordarshan national television.
India's army is clamoring for helicopters, artillery, armor and infantry, while the air force is on the verge of buying 126 war jets worth almost $12 billion and the navy wants an aircraft carrier.
India, which is the biggest weapons buyer among emerging countries and has imported military hardware worth $28 billion since 2000, plans to sign further contracts estimated at up to $30 billion in the next few years.
However, strategy expert Uday Bhaskar noted the lion's share of the funds will be taken up by wages and pensions, and said: "The current defense allocation may look good, but it will not enhance the capability of the military in any way."
Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: http://www.djnewsplus.com/access/al?rnd=kIGIVmK5g1WYtJjPYh4z8g%3D%3D. You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day.
Monday July 6th, 2009 / 11h58     Source : Dowjones Business News

Once upon a time making nuclear bombs was the biggest thing a country could do. But not any more; North Korea’s successful nuclear test provides rock-solid proof. This is a country that no one admires.

It is unknown for scientific achievement, has little electricity or fuel, food and medicine are scarce, corruption is ubiquitous, and its people live in terribly humiliating conditions under a vicious, dynastic dictatorship. In a famine some years ago, North Korea lost nearly 800,000 people. It has an enormous prison population of 200,000 that is subjected to systematic torture and abuse.

Why does a miserable, starving country continue spending its last penny on the bomb? On developing and testing a fleet of missiles whose range increases from time to time? The answer is clear: North Korea’s nuclear weapons are instruments of blackmail rather than means of defence. Brandished threateningly, and manipulated from time to time, these bombs are designed to keep the flow of international aid going.

Surely the people of North Korea gained nothing from their country’s nuclearisation. But they cannot challenge their oppressors. But, as Pakistan celebrates the 11th anniversary of its nuclear tests, we Pakistanis — who are far freer — must ask: what have we gained from the bomb?

Some had imagined that nuclear weapons would make Pakistan an object of awe and respect internationally. They had hoped that Pakistan would acquire the mantle of leadership of the Islamic world. Indeed, in the aftermath of the 1998 tests, Pakistan’s stock had shot up in some Muslim countries before it crashed. But today, with a large swathe of its territory lost to insurgents, one has to defend Pakistan against allegations of being a failed state. In terms of governance, economy, education or any reasonable quality of life indicators, Pakistan is not a successful state that is envied by anyone.

Contrary to claims made in 1998, the bomb did not transform Pakistan into a technologically and scientifically advanced country. Again, the facts are stark. Apart from relatively minor exports of computer software and light armaments, science and technology remain irrelevant in the process of produc

tion. Pakistan’s current exports are principally textiles, cotton, leather, footballs, fish and fruit. This is just as it was before Pakistan embarked on its quest for the bomb. The value-added component of Pakistani manufacturing somewhat exceeds that of Bangladesh and Sudan, but is far below that of India, Turkey and Indonesia. Nor is the quality of science taught in our educational institutions even remotely satisfactory. But then, given that making a bomb these days requires only narrow technical skills rather than scientific ones, this is scarcely surprising.

What became of the claim that the pride in the bomb would miraculously weld together the disparate peoples who constitute Pakistan? While many in Punjab still want the bomb, angry Sindhis want water and jobs — and they blame Punjab for taking these away. Pakhtun refugees from Swat and Buner, hapless victims of a war between the Taliban and the Pakistani Army, are tragically being turned away by ethnic groups from entering Sindh. This rejection strikes deeply against the concept of a single nation united in adversity.

As for the Baloch, they deeply resent that the two nuclear test sites — now radioactive and out of bounds — are on their soil. Angry at being governed from Islamabad, many have taken up arms and demand that Punjab’s army get off their backs. Many schools in Balochistan refuse to fly the Pakistani flag, the national anthem is not sung, and black flags celebrate Pakistan’s independence day. Balochistan University teems with the icons of Baloch separatism: posters of Akbar Bugti, Balaach Marri, Brahamdagh Bugti, and ‘General Sheroff’ are everywhere. The bomb was no glue.

Did the bomb help Pakistan liberate Kashmir from Indian rule? It is a sad fact that India’s grip on Kashmir — against the will of Kashmiris — is tighter today than it has been for a long time. As the late Eqbal Ahmed often remarked, Pakistan’s poor politics helped snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Its strategy for confronting India — secret jihad by Islamic fighters protected by Pakistan’s nuclear weapons — backfired terribly in the arena of international opinion. More importantly, it created the hydra-headed militancy now haunting Pakistan. Some Mujahideen, who felt betrayed by Pakistan’s army and politicians, ultimately took revenge by turning their guns against their sponsors and trainers. The bomb helped us lose Kashmir.

Some might ask, didn’t the bomb stop India from swallowing up Pakistan? First, an upward-mobile India has no reason to want an additional 170 million Muslims. Second, even if India wanted to, territorial conquest is impossible. Conventional weapons, used by Pakistan in a defensive mode, are sufficient protection. If mighty America could not digest Iraq, there can never be a chance for a middling power like India to occupy Pakistan, a country four times larger than Iraq.

It is, of course, true that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons deterred India from launching punitive attacks at least thrice since the 1998 tests. Pakistan’s secret incursion in Kargil during 1999, the Dec 13 attack on the Indian parliament the same year (initially claimed by Jaish-i-Muhammad), and the Mumbai attack in 2008 by Lashkar-i-Taiba, did create sentiment in India for ferreting out Pakistan-based militant groups. So should we keep the bomb to protect militant groups? Surely it is time to realise that these means of conducting foreign policy are tantamount to suicide.

It was a lie that the bomb could protect Pakistan, its people or its armed forces. Rather, it has helped bring us to this grievously troubled situation and offers no way out. The threat to Pakistan is internal. The bomb cannot help us recover the territory seized by the Baitullahs and Fazlullahs, nor bring Waziristan back to Pakistan. More nuclear warheads, test-launching more missiles, or buying yet more American F-16s and French submarines, will not help.

Pakistan’s security problems cannot be solved by better weapons. Instead, the way forward lies in building a sustainable and active democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a federation in which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, elimination of the feudal order and creating a society that respects the rule of law.

It is time for Pakistan to become part of the current global move against nuclear weapons. India — which had thrust nuclearisation upon an initially unwilling Pakistan — is morally obliged to lead. Both must announce that they will not produce more fissile material to make yet more bombs. Both must drop insane plans to expand their nuclear arsenals. Eleven years ago a few Pakistanis and Indians had argued that the bomb would bring no security, no peace. They were condemned as traitors and sellouts by their fellow citizens. But each passing year shows just how right we were.
The writer teaches nuclear physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

For nuclear sanity

by Praful Bidwai (Frontline, April 25 - May 08, 2009)

India should welcome Obama’s call for a nuclear weapons-free world and launch a spirited campaign for the rapid elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.

PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s April 5 speech in Prague calling for a world free of the scourge of nuclear weapons is a major foreign and security policy initiative that deserves applause. If he pursues its logic through to the end with the same since rity and passion with which he outlined his commitment “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”, he could be the first United States President to go beyond nuclear arms control and to put nuclear weapons elimination on the global agenda. That would mark a turning point for strategic thinking the world over and open up new avenues through which to seek security.

This remains a big “if”. Obama has not yet worked out the doctrinal, strategic and practical consequences of his fundamental premise that a secure world without nuclear weapons is both possible and desirable. His speech only outlines some necessary steps but without specifying their sequence or time frame, numbers (of weapons to be de-alerted or destroyed), the roles of different actors, the function of legally binding treaties, and so on.

But Obama has stated some premises upfront and emphasised their moral-political rationale in a way no major global leader has done in recent years. Thus, he said, “the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War”; these are “the ultimate tools of destruction”, which can erase the world “in a single flash of light”. The global non-proliferation regime is in crisis and “the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up”; soon, “we could reach the point where the centre cannot hold”.

“We are not destined,” said Obama, “to live in a world where more nations and more people possess [nuclear weapons]. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.” Logically, fighting fatalism means putting “an end to Cold War thinking” and reducing “the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy”.

This sets Obama miles apart not just from George W. Bush but also from Bill Clinton. Obama is effectively reversing a long tradition beginning with the Ronald Reagan presidency towards either a hardening of the U.S. nuclear posture, or the development of new weapons such as “Star Wars”-style ballistic missile defence (BMD), itself premised on even more dangerous doctrines than that of nuclear deterrence, which is fatally flawed.

Thus, the U.S. has failed, even two decades after the Cold War ended, to move beyond relatively paltry reductions in its nuclear arsenal through the Moscow Treaty of 2002. Under Bush, it refused to take 2,200 weapons off “launch on warning” alert. The U.S. military establishment wants to develop a Reliable Replaceable Warhead for existing ones, find new uses (for example, bunker-busting) for old weapon designs, and has yielded to pressures from the nuclear weapons laboratories to modernise and refine existing armaments and do experimental work on fusion weapons at the expensive National Ignition Facility.

Bush was not only obsessed with perpetuating America’s nuclear superiority. He gave it a particularly deadly edge through BMD deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic, thus exacerbating tensions with Russia and destabilising strategic balances worldwide. Bush also blurred vital distinctions between conventional and nuclear weapons, unsigned the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

Bush’s BMD programme will militarise and nuclearise outer space, in which the U.S. seeks “full-spectrum” dominance. His paranoid response to the September 11 attacks resulted in the worst-ever fiasco in the history of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at its important review conference in 2005, liquidating all the significant gains made at the 2000 review.

Obama promises to change course, radically. He has spoken more boldly and honestly in favour of a nuclear weapons-free world than any other U.S. President in decades. He has gone further than any other in acknowledging that the U.S. bears a “moral responsibility” for nuclear disarmament because it is the only power to have used the horror weapon. This speaks of exemplary moral clarity, as does his statement that the U.S. must take the lead on disarmament. However, that cannot be said about four other propositions in Obama’s speech. First, he betrays an unpardonably naive faith in nuclear deterrence: “Make no mistake. As long as [nuclear] weapons exist, the U.S. will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary.…” He also believes in extended deterrence – deploying nuclear weapons in non-North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries.

This column has dissected the fallacy of nuclear deterrence far too often to warrant further comment other than that it is a fallible, fragile and unreliable basis on which to premise security (via a balance of terror). It involves unrealistic assumptions about capabilities and doctrines, symmetrical perceptions by adversaries of “unacceptable damage” means, and the complete absence of miscalculations and accidents – 100 per cent of the time.

Second, Obama continues to repose faith in BMD – he congratulated the Czech for their “courage” in hosting it – although he qualifies his support by saying BMD must be “cost-effective and proven”. This ignores BMD’s primitive, as-yet-premature status in intercepting missiles, and worse, the danger of escalating military rivalry to uncertain and risky levels where an adversary could feel tempted to neutralise a putative BMD advantage by amassing more missiles or launching wildcat strikes.

Third, Obama, like Bush and Clinton, makes a specious distinction between responsible/acceptable/good nuclear powers (the Big Five-plus-Israel-plus-India-plus-non-Taliban-Pakistan) and irresponsible/dangerous ones (Iran, North Korea). This permits double standards and detracts from the universal urgency of abolishing all nuclear weapons. Obama’s endorsement of Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative – unilateral interception at sea of suspect nuclear-related materials – follows from this.

Finally, Obama believes that disarmament may not be achieved in “my lifetime”. Such pessimism is unwarranted. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s thoughtful plan for global nuclear disarmament, presented to the United Nations General Assembly in 1988, set a 15-year timeline for complete nuclear elimination. This is realistic – if the U.S. and the international community musters the will for an early disarmament initiative.

If Obama effects deep cuts in U.S. nuclear weapons through the promised Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia this year, and launches a drive for banning nuclear testing and ending fissile production worldwide, the momentum can be accelerated, especially if U.S. policy shifts to no-first-use. After all, even the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – George P. Schulz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn – believe that nuclear weapons abolition can be achieved in the foreseeable future.

Obama’s speech provides an opportunity to all those who believe in complete nuclear weapons elimination, a cause kept alive by the peace movement, a coalition of states, and several expert commissions. India too professes a commitment to this goal and must seize this opportunity.
India’s lukewarm response

Regrettably, Indian policymakers have extended a lukewarm, if not cold, welcome to Obama’s speech. So fearful are they of pressure on India to sign the CTBT that they are clutching at straws. One such is Obama’s statement that “my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the CTBT”. This is different from what he wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh before he was sworn in: “I will work with the U.S. Senate to secure ratification of [CTBT] at the earliest practical day, and then launch a major diplomatic initiative to ensure its entry into force.” (The letter was suppressed by South Block.)

Indian policymakers are also reportedly relieved that Obama has not reiterated his letter’s reference to India’s “real responsibilities – [including] steps to restrain nuclear weapons programmes and pursuing effective disarmament when others do so”. They are also pleased that Obama has appointed Ellen Tauscher, a Democrat Congresswoman, as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security rather than Robert Einhorn, described by India’s nuclear hawks as “an ayatollah of non-proliferation”.

Such timidity is unbecoming of a nation that claims to be proud of its pro-disarmament record and has pledged to fight for a nuclear weapons-free world. India opposed the CTBT in 1995-96 not for its intrinsic flaws or demerits but because it wanted to test nuclear weapons. Having done so in 1998, India should sign and ratify the treaty. Even Arundhati Ghose, who famously declared that India will not sign it “not now, not ever”, now says that she sees no problem with its signature. This may show a deplorable level of cynicism, but it is nevertheless a ground for correcting course and returning to the disarmament agenda.

Logically, this includes several steps such as the CTBT, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, regional nuclear risk-reduction and restraint measures (including forswearing missile test-flights and keeping delivery vehicles apart from warheads) and, of course, deep cuts in nuclear weapons by all the nuclear weapons states, beginning with the U.S. and Russia.

India must boldly seize the initiative by updating the Rajiv Gandhi plan, opposing BMD and proactively arguing for rapid strides towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Here lies the litmus test of India’s commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world and of its creative and principled diplomacy.

The News International, 13 March 2009

‘Nobody will be a winner in an Indo-Pak war'
Friday, March 13, 2009
By Shahid Husain

Karachi

Jatin Desai, a senior journalist associated with leading Indian newspaper Hindustan Times, has said that war should not even be the “last option” between Pakistan and India because there will be no winners in a war between the two countries.

“Both India and Pakistan are nuclear-powered countries. Nowadays we have nuclear bombs that are 100 times superior to the ones used by the Americans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just imagine the havoc they can cause,” he said.

Born in Mumbai on January 1, 1955, Desai was whole timer with left-wing organisations in Maharashtra while he was a student and also worked on the trade union front. In 1986, he started his journalistic career with Guajarati Samachaar, a newspaper published from Mumbai. However, a year later he opted for a Guajarati paper called Janmabhoomi. Thereafter he joined Midday and worked there for nine years. Now he writes a column for Hindustan Times. He also remained the president of Mumbai Union of Journalists for four years and spearheaded movements for the freedom of press and speech. He also fought against fascist politics in Mumbai. “Two of our female journalists were attacked by these forces which only manifested their weakness,” he told The News.

Desai is also active in Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace & Democracy and is a prominent anti-nuclear and human rights activist. He said that people have to accept that Mumbai carnage is a great setback for peace but he is optimistic that the people will compel their respective governments to immediately begin peace process which has been in the back burner.

“The common people on both sides of the border want peace. Day before yesterday, I was in Lahore and went to a second-hand bookshop to buy books but I was amazed that the shopkeeper simply refused to take money from me when he learnt that I was from India,” he said. He was met with the same hospitability in Islamabad, reveals Desai.

On his seventh visit to Pakistan, Desai strongly believes that the people of Pakistan and India want peace. Citing an example he adds, “Immediately after 26/11—the Mumbai attack — fundamentalist forces in India insisted that there should be a war or at least a “surgical strike” on terrorists hiding in Pakistan but the people thwarted the design.”

“It’s true that peace movement is weak but the majorities in both countries want peace. Unfortunately, the hawkish minorities in both countries are more organised and vocal as compared to the silent majority,” he said. “It’s high time that we take peace movement to the common man,” he said.

He agreed that the Indian media in general was hawkish after the Mumbai carnage but pointed out that the media has reviewed and realised its mistakes. “We never had an experience of 60-hour-long shootings and the media was unaware. We are in the process of learning. I guess the Indian media will behave more rationally in future,” he said.

He said on December 12 of last year the people of Mumbai organised a 100-kilometer human chain in support of peace and as many as 150,000 people participated in it. That amply demonstrates that they are against terrorism and disapprove of war, he added.

Asked if there was any possibility of a confederation amongst South Asian nations, he said Ram Manohar Lohia, a socialist, floated such an idea as early as 1962, today we have SAARC comprising eight countries and its original concept was regional cooperation on the lines of European Union, “the Euro is stronger than Dollar and South Asian countries can be strong too if we cooperate with each other.”

Referring to the problems of Indian and Pakistani fishermen, he said there should be consular access to fisher folk who tread unknowingly in territorial water, “both India and Pakistan should establish more consulates in order to facilitate people. Former President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee agreed some years ago that both countries will establish more consulates by January 4, 2006, but its 2009 now and there has been no progress in this regard,” he regretted.

Kashmir Times
February 9, 2009

Editorial

Peace process is imperative
Civil society in India and Pakistan must assert for renewal of dialogue process

Both India and Pakistan have yet to learn to live in peace, dignity and honour on the basis of equality as responsible sovereign democratic countries and enter into a fruitful era of mutual goodwill and cooperation, overcoming the prolonged confrontation that has only brought in its wake avoidable death and destruction.It took years for the civil society in the two countries to build bridges of understanding for beginning a process of dialogue and conciliation in place of mutual acrimony and confrontation. The peace process between the two neighbouring countries was the result of the efforts of the men and women of goodwill and peace who worked tirelessly since 1993 for forging people-to-people contacts to pressurize their respective governments to initiate the much needed process for peace and reconciliation. While the peace activists were striving for peace the powerfully entrenched vested interests, the rabble rousers and fundamentalists of various hues in the two countries were making every effort to subvert the peace process. Unfortunately the peace process between India and Pakistan had not moved as fast as it should have been. The hopes that with the return of democracy in Pakistan the peace process will be accelerated have been dashed to the ground with the Mumbai terror attack. The shock and anger over this most condemnable act was not misplaced. The concern for security of the citizens too is understandable. But the war cries and finger-pointing leading to the reversal of peace process defy any logic. The objective of the terrorists responsible for the attack was to subvert the peace process and renew hostilities between the two countries. Instead of playing into their hands it was imperative for the leadership of the two countries to push forward the peace process. It is indeed unfortunate that instead of meeting the challenge of terrorism with determination and mutual cooperation the ruling elites in the two countries are engaging themselves in a blame game and war of nerves.

The peace in the region is not only possible but is also necessary for the very welfare of the people of the two countries.Since the peace process, derailed in the wake of Mumbai terror attack, was the result of the efforts of the peace activists and members of the civil society in the two countries to create the conducive climate in this regard it is for them to rise, unite and assert to silence the war cries again being heard in the two countries. Let the saner elements in both India and Pakistan say no to war and confrontation and pressurize their respective governments to pick up the broken threads for reviving the much needed peace process. Instead of talking at each other the two governments must be made to talk to each other both for eliminating terrorism in the region and ushering into an era of peace and mutual cooperation. The people-to-people contacts established in the recent past have been the catalyst for the beginning of the dialogue process between the two estranged neighbouring countries. These contacts need to be further strengthened for pressurizing the establishments in Islamabad and New Delhi to renew the dialogue process for overcoming trust deficit and evolving a joint strategy and mechanism to deal with the menace of terrorism that poses threat to the security of the people as well as peace in the region. The two governments should allow such visits of the well-meaning civil society activists in increasing number for resurrection of the peace process.Dialogue is the only way to resolve all the outstanding disputes and overcome differences on various issues between the two countries. If the terrorists and hawks have the vested interests to subvert the peace process the interests of the common people in the two countries can best be served by carrying the peace process to its logical end. One can very well imagine the disastrous consequences of any war between the two nuclear powers. Let the people in the two countries assert to put halt to the foolish cries of war, hot pursuits, surgical strikes or retaliatory action and force the two governments to revive the abandoned peace process. All the contentious issues can be settled only through a purposeful process of dialogue with utmost sincerity.