There cannot be a policy of communalism in Gujarat and secularism in
Kashmir... India must be dedicated to a secular peace.
INDIA IS on the brink of a war. The situation is unprecedented and is
totally different from fighting infiltration in 1947-48 or the ground
and air strikes of 1965 or the controlled operation of the Bangladesh
war. Nor is it a cross-border skirmish like the Kargil war. These
take place all the time. Fire is returned by fire. It is suggested
India should go further because - to borrow Grotius' phrase - it is
waging a `just' war. But, to fight an anti-terrorist war entails
strikes on major terrorist bases as the United States id in
Afghanistan - to be followed through by ground operations more
complicated than America's in Afghanistan and, apart from the nuclear
threat, more frightening than Vietnam. All this is misplaced jingoism
portending terrible risks and consequences.
The BJP-led Government at the Centre cannot support a Hindu jehad in
Gujarat and fight a secular war in Kashmir. Today, India is being
savagely criticised for growing communal tendencies. These criticisms
cannot be ignored and are not without relevance to the terrorist war
which Pakistan has supportively unleashed on India. We cannot shrug
off the indictments as being biased international reports. A very
serious issue was raised by British courts in the Nadeem extradition
case as to whether a Muslim could get a fair trial in India. I do not
believe the judgment is correct. But, I have seen the expert human
rights evidence. There was enough material to string together and
make out a case that communalism was on the rise. The misuse of TADA
against Muslims adds support to the allegations against the system.
Although I believe that our courts are not communal, things are
basically going wrong with secular governance in India. Now, Amnesty
International has raised the basic question about whether Muslims can
expect a fair deal in India. This comes close on the heels of
justified concern about Gujarat by the European Union, various
countries including Indonesia, Human Rights Watch and others. These
concerns are replicated by the National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC), the independent fact-finding mission called "Gujarat Carnage
2002: A Report to the Nation" (April 2002), the CPI(M)-AIDWA report
"State-sponsored carnage in Gujarat" (March 2002) and a detailed
summation of the decimation of the lives, finances and futures of
Muslims in Gujarat by Communalism Combat (March-April 2002). It needs
no repetition that the BJP did nothing against Narendra Modi, the
Chief Minister whose Government is rightly guilty of complicity and
misrule. What was supported in Gujarat was a politically-motivated
and protected Hindu jehad especially invented to excite political
support. It is necessary to repeat this in order to understand where
the two trajectories of Gujarat and Kashmir meet. Following the
post-Babri Masjid riots (1992) and with the Graham Staines murder has
begun a conspirational support for communal violence and communal
issues. Let us see how the trajectories proceed. From January 2001,
the Ayodhya temple issue was raised. The Government allowed the
movement to grow despite warnings throughout the year and culminated
in the crisis of March 2002 when the Government specifically
supported the foundation ceremony. It is during this period - and
especially after the September 11 attack in New York - that
Pakistan-supported terrorism seized on the opportunity to attack our
Parliament, target the Srinagar Assembly, slaughter innocents in
Jammu and increase cross-border terrorism to a high intensity `war'
operation resulting in events leading to the murder of politicians
such as Abdul Gani Lone.
The analysis that this is a spillover of the Afghan situation
resulting from a surplus of available mercenaries is idle and
misleading. Nor is there any great home truth in dramatising the fact
that a desperate Pervez Musharraf is trying to revive his political
standing through aggression and war. All these factors exist, but
they evade the real issue. Concerted efforts at triggering terrorist
wars do not emerge by accident. They are planned. Pakistan and the
hardliners in Kashmir have seized precisely on this political moment,
when charges of communalism are high, to unleash what they now call a
`just' war. We need not go back to the definitions of international
law to define what constitutes a `just' war, why the Bangladesh war
was one of liberation and why the Kashmir conflict relates to
terrorism. All that only raises debating points. The real issues
stare us in the face. India is not a communal country. Nor are its
huge millions communal people. But, the incidents of the last few
years, culminating and continuing in Gujarat, leave the world baffled
and compel it to ask the question asked by English courts, foreign
Governments and others: "Can India in the light of the recent past
give a fair deal to its minorities - especially Muslims?'' This
question becomes more poignant because of the sins of omission and
commission of the BJP-led alliance.
Now, let us return to the war situation in Pakistan. Does India have
a comprehensive strategy to deal with this war? There are three
strands to this strategy. First is the diplomatic initiative. India's
stand is to ride on America's post-September 11 anti-terrorist plan
and to ask the U.S. and NATO to be even-handed against terrorism
irrespective of whether it relates to Kashmir or Afghanistan. This
strategy has to be pursued on sound common sense-based Kautilyan
principles. But, there are political catches in all this which go
back to the fundamental indictments that the European Union itself
has made about communalism in India. Second, there is the military
strategy as to whether India should make a cross-border strike as
Islamabad increases bases and training camps in Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir (PoK) as also in Pakistan itself. The total Pakistan
operation is large and elaborate. But, we are not talking of
cross-border skirmishes. Assuming that it is desirable - and, it is
not - is India really in a position to mount an operation which would
have to be as big as the Gulf War or the recent U.S.-led operation in
Afghanistan? We do not have the military or economic resources to
mount such an operation involving air strikes, ground and commando
operations. Whether the attack is on the six training camps in PoK or
the eight training bases in Pakistan, a full retaliation can be
expected in which many foolish things can happen. The very idea of
going beyond non-escalatory cross-border skirmishes is unthinkable -
logistically or otherwise.
But, there is a third aspect to the strategy which goes to the heart
of India's case. It is a simple statement that we are the most
complex and the greatest multi-cultural country in the world and that
no doubts can be cast on the integrity on Indian secularism. Our
entire case on Kashmir, whether with Pakistan or the rest of the
world, rests on the principles of anti-communalism, which draw India
to peace and togetherness. Our present Government cannot promote
misplaced jingoism whilst underlining support for rabid communalism.
Nor can it isolate issues of war as if they are not inter-connected
with issues of peace. There cannot be a policy of communalism in
Gujarat and secularism in Kashmir. This is an explosive cocktail.
India must be dedicated to a secular peace. This can only be done
without compromising on any issue.
The Vajpayee government could not have presented a sorrier picture of
itself than it does after the May 14 Kaluchak carnage and Abdul Gani
Lone's assassination. Between bouts of bluff and bluster, it
oscillates: from reaching for the gun to meekly bowing to
contradictory pressures, internal and external.
The government continues to think muddle-headedly about all manner of
'tough' options, including 'limited war', a 'covert operations'-based
'new strategy' against terrorism, and coercive diplomacy, rather than
straightforward, clean, bilateral approaches, or multilateral
diplomacy centred on the United Nations.
Traditionally, India has been a strongly multilateralist advocate of
the UN Charter - both to promote peaceful settlement of disputes, or
in the event of threats of war, the Security Council's intervention
under Chapter VII. Such an option is indeed available today through
Resolution 1373, which obligates all states to prevent terrorist
activities. India can demand that Pakistan, which it accuses of
having organised Kaluchak, comply with this verifiably - on pain of
sanctions.
However, the government - keen to emulate the macho style of the
United States and Israel - cites the recent attacks as a casus belli
(reason for war). Its enormous, unprecedented, five-month-long
military mobilisation of 700,000 troops underscores just that.
But it has failed to produce half-way convincing evidence of
Islamabad's hand behind the attacks. It has disclosed the identities
of the militants involved in Kaluchak. This is better than the
evidence collected for December 13. But it doesn't add up to the
minimally credible proof needed to establish guilt.
In the absence of clinching evidence, one must rationally exercise
one's political judgment and assess whether the Musharraf regime
could have risked-despite its worst intentions-engineering terrorist
attacks at this point of time, just when Christina Rocca was visiting
the region.
The frank answer must be, highly unlikely - not because Islamabad has
suddenly turned noble and benign, but because, post-September 11, it
operates under new constraints. When Musharraf decided to throw his
lot with Washington, he narrowed his own freedom of action. He was
compelled to act against jehadi "freedom-fighters". With American
troops present in Pakistan, and participating in operations to mop up
Al-Qaeda-Taliban members on its soil, it would have been
near-suicidal for Musharraf to order the ISI to unleash terror in
India.
Unless one weaves fantastic conspiracy theories about the Islamabad
church bombing and the Karachi attack killing Frenchmen, one must
reasonably surmise that Pakistan's agencies have no control over
'rogue' elements and anti-US, anti-Musharraf jehadis.
Thus, it scarcely makes sense to cite Kaluchak as reason for war. If
the general case for war is weak, that for 'limited war/strikes' is
nonexistent. It is ludicrous to equate 'limited strikes' and 'limited
war', as many Indian strategists are doing. The first only denotes
the action taken by a State; the second one of many possible
outcomes, which depend on the adversary's responses too. Pakistan, as
much as India, will shape any military conflict today.
The other "options" that are being bandied about are equally flawed.
Take coercive diplomacy. If India decides to cancel Pakistan's
Most-Favoured-Nation trade status, it risks the World Trade
Organisation's reprimand.
Abrogating the Indus Treaty and depriving Pakistan of its share of
the river's waters will be illegal and could attract sanctions,
besides delivering a terrible message to other neighbours.
Practically, the fact is that the Indus waters cannot be impounded
for another 10 years or so.
The third option, 'covert operations' or tit-for-tat terrorism on
Pakistani soil-publicly advocated by a cabinet minister-is even
worse. Besides being profoundly immoral, it will remove all practical
inhibitions on the use of force, and make innocent civilians hostage
to the wiles of the two rival States' most lawless agencies.
Nothing could then prevent South Asia's descent into virtual
barbarism. Nothing could more effectively knock the bottom out of
India's legitimate complaint about 'cross-border terrorism'. This
option must not even be countenanced. If the government seriously
wants to explore principled, imaginative and rational ideas, it would
do well to combine the 1373-based multilateralism with bilateral
proposals for joint patrolling of the LoC.
India and Pakistan stand at the brink of nuclear catastrophe. Many
people from all over the world - including businessmen, politicians,
strategic analysts, diplomats, scientists, peace activists and common
people above all - have all voiced their concern regarding the
rapidly deteriorating situation in South Asia. Infiltration of
terrorists from across the Pakistani side of the Line of Control, the
massing of troops at the border by both countries, and the increasing
exchanges of artillery fire matched only by the verbal volleys
exchanged between the leadership of both countries, could escalate
quickly into a full-scale war.
This, in turn poses the threat of a nuclear exchange, which would be
catastrophic for both the countries, South Asia in particular, and
affect the world at large.
India and Pakistan signed the Shimla Agreement in 1972 and the Lahore
Agreement in 1999.
In both these accords, they agreed to renounce the use of force and
to resolve all outstanding issues between them by peaceful means.
There has never been a time more urgent and more important to respect
the letter and spirit of those agreements than now.
We urge the governments of both Pakistan and India to immediately
step back from the brink of war and nuclear holocaust by committing
themselves to the following seven-point peace plan. We urge all those
Governments that endorsed the U. N. resolutions against terrorism in
the wake of September 11, 2001, to use their good offices with the
Governments of India and Pakistan to accept this peace plan and to
help put it into effect with the greatest urgency. The proposed plan:
1) There should be an immediate ceasefire by Indian and Pakistani
forces along the LoC.
2) Pervez Musharraf should take immediate, firm, and demonstrable
steps to stop cross-border infiltration from Pakistan-controlled
Kashmir into the Indian-controlled side. To ensure that these steps
are being taken, an International Anti-terrorist Monitoring Group
should be formed and deployed. Pakistan and India should agree to
full cooperation with this group.
This would provide a neutral means of ensuring that Pakistan's
commitments about stopping cross-border infiltration are being
carried out.
3) If these measures are agreed to, India in turn should make a
commitment not to cross the LoC.
4) Pakistan should also adopt the no-first-use policy of nuclear
weapons, which has already been adopted by India. These measures
should be urgently instituted within a time-frame of a few weeks.
Thereafter, three further steps can be taken to ensure long-term
peace and towards resolution of a crisis that has now lasted well
over half a century. These three steps are:
1) India and Pakistan should thin down their military deployments
along their common border and return to pre-December 13, 2001, levels.
2) India and Pakistan should resume their dialogue on all outstanding
issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, in the spirit of the Shimla and
Lahore agreements, and pick up the threads where they left off at
Agra barely ten months ago.
3) As a part of the dialogue process, India and Pakistan should form
a joint technical commission to explore and recommend how the mutual
commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons can be verified and
maintained.
4) Why not a Shimla-II? It would be truly fitting if this could take
place on July 12, 2002, the thirtieth anniversary of the historic
Shimla agreement.
(The writers are, respectively, former Chief of the Naval Staff and
president, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Maryland,
U.S.)
Somebody, please build me an Ark. It should be large and capacious,
able to accommodate not only my family and friends and the chance
acquaintance, but also the neem and gulmohur trees in front of my
house, a pair of Indian elephants, Bengal tigers, Himalayan bulbuls
and rose-ringed parakeets, my books and CDs, my dogs, my friends'
dogs, and any other sentient being on this subcontinent wishing to
leave.
I don't particularly want to sail away from my beloved land, but at
this juncture the alternative on offer doesn't really inspire
confidence.
Amid the sabre-rattling, the battle cries and the glib talk of a
limited war, which may escalate into a nuclear exchange, comes this
reassuring piece of news: the DRDO [*] has developed a portable
nuclear shelter usable for 30 people up to 96 hours, equipped with
its own power supply, toilets and water tanks. This is the
alternative to my Ark.
We must rank first among the loony nations. Until yesterday we were
witness to our government's inability to contain the Gujarat carnage,
and today we blindly trust it to navigate us through a possible
nuclear holocaust unscathed - assisted by portable nuclear shelters.
Naturally, neither the government nor the DRDO elaborates what would
happen to the shelter were it to be three to 30 miles within the
radius of the blast; whether it would be able to withstand the
temperatures rising over 300,000 degrees Celsius? This government has
long since abdicated responsibility of answering such questions.
Trifling questions, perhaps, when it comes to defending the nation's
honour, but which must be answered.
The most honourable, patriotic, nationalistic people were the
Japanese; ever ready to die for land and the emperor until Hiroshima
put an end to all that nonsense. Taketa San is a man every Indian
should meet. I met him in '98 right after our nuclear tests.
He was barely in his teens when the Americans nuked Hiroshima. They
lived out in the suburbs, but his sister was in the city that day and
they bundled her home in a wheelbarrow. He spoke to us in Japanese,
but from the tears flowing down his cheeks and the eloquent gestures
of his hands I knew immediately that his sister was among the
thousands whose skin had peeled off and had hung down from raw flesh
like rags.
Her death many hours later had been excruciatingly painful. Taketa
San keeps the memory of that tortuous day alive, like a festering
wound. Even though it must cost him physically, mentally, emotionally
to do so, he recreates it afresh each time for a new audience so that
we must feel what he felt, must feel the horror of it in our bones,
so that we never, ever allow it to happen again.
For those who lack a sense of history to temper their bravado: The
American A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a prototype, a
crude and smaller version of the kinds of nuclear weapons we have in
our possession today, and yet it killed over 200,000 people, many
instantly, and many more slowly and painfully.
A recent study conducted by Dr M V Ramana and his team at Princeton
showed that a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan, using
only a tenth of the weapons in their possession, would kill or injure
over four million people. Many would die in the immediate blast.
Others would suffer slower deaths from burns and radiation.
The truly unfortunate would take their lifetime dying slowly, a
lifetime searching vainly for water in the sere, treeless nuclear
wastelands.
Admittedly, one good thing about the bomb is that it is perfectly
democratic. So whether you're the Raja of Race Course Road or the
Leper of Lodhi, you get fried and no money in the world can bribe
your way out of this mess. Also, it is perfectly incurable.
One small dose of radioactivity - and there's much of that around
with the mega-bombs - and cancer with impressive keloids could be
your lot. As for your children, should they survive, and their
children's children, factor in the radioactive lifespan of Plutonium
239, which has a half-life of 24,000 years, and then hedge your bets.
India, as we know it, would be over. This wonderful, mad, exuberant
civilisation, which took over 5,000 years to build, could be
destroyed in under five minutes.
On second thoughts I'm not so sure I'd set sail on the Ark after all.
What if half way across the globe I'd suddenly remember the smell of
the earth after the first monsoon showers, and know I'd never smell
that smell again. And if I were to recall Phooli, my cleaning lady,
who for some reason couldn't come along, who bore her poverty with
dignity and a toothless grin... or Humayun's tomb or the Sal forests
of the Terai which would surely be no more, I know my heart would
shatter into a million irreparable pieces.
No, I think the alternative to my Ark would be to figure out where
exactly the first bomb was going to drop and then to set up camp
right there in the middle of it. Chances are, I would be vaporised
immediately. And you, who will still choose the path to the DRDO
shelter, consider this: that as your 96th hour draws to a close you
may just envy me my fate.
--
[*] Defence Research and Development Organisation (India)
London, May 30:
As the war clouds gather over the subcontinent, a survey conducted in
Jammu and Kashmir suggests the vast majori through elections, felt 71
per cent of the people and 28 per cent disagreed.
At least 75 per cent in each of the three regions of the state agreed
that economic development, free and fair elections, direct talks
between Delhi and representatives of Kashmiris, an end to violence
and stopping infiltration would help bring peace.
The results of the poll from Jammu and Leh should come as no surprise.
But what should gladden policymakers in Delhi is that despite the
widespread cynicism about the way polls have been conducted in the
past, 52 per cent in and around Srinagar still believe in its
peacemaking power.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government appears determined to press ahead
with elections, scheduled in September, no matter what the
provocation by way of militant violence.
Opinion brought out by the survey, however, shows that 65 per cent
did not believe free and fair elections can be held if the violence
continued, while 34 per cent thought it was possible.
Sixty-one per cent would prefer to remain Indian citizens while 33
per cent said they did not know. Only 6 per cent wanted to be
Pakistani citizens. That is cold comfort for the Indian government
because in Srinagar as many as 78 per cent of the people said they
did not know if they would be better off, politically and
economically, under India.
Another worrying factor for Delhi is the stand on Pakistan, the
popular mood in the Valley clearly reflecting what many Kashmiri
groups, like the Hurriyat Conference, have been saying: that a
solution is not possible without Islamabad's involvement. Only 23 per
cent thought Pakistan's involvement in the region has been bad, 35
per cent felt it to be good and 41 per cent believed it has made no
real difference.
Asked whether a new political party was needed to bring about a
permanent solution, 53 per cent agreed, while 46 per cent did not.
Support for preserving the region's cultural identity - Kashmiriyat -
in any long-term solution was overwhelming at 81 per cent. In tune
with this mood, 80 per cent felt that the return of Pandits would
help peace.
The majority, 53 per cent, wanted the role of security forces to be
scaled down. But perceptions differed on the behaviour of the forces.
No one in Leh or Jammu believed human rights violations by the
security forces were widespread, whereas in Srinagar 64 per cent of
the population thought they were.
Again, on whether there were human rights violations by militant
groups, the opinion was divided. In Srinagar, 33 per cent believed
these were non-existent, while 96 per cent in Jammu thought otherwise.
The poll was commissioned by Lord Avebury, chairman of the Friends of
Kashmir and widely seen to be a Pakistan sympathiser. All the 850
people interviewed were over the age of 16. They were from 22
localities in Jammu city, 20 in Srinagar and six in Leh.
No one will ask, in the devastated aftermath, which side was at fault
or what the justice or otherwise of a particular cause. Whatever the
issues involved, there has to be absolute peace at any cost in the
Subcontinent. It's as simple as that
It was in the merry month of May four years ago that underground
blooms burst open beneath the Rajasthan desert and the Chagai Hills.
Two impoverished nations had added to the inventive variety of ways
by which they could extinguish human lives. Thanks to the 'nuclear
assets' then acquired, it is now possible - in this ancient, poor,
splendid, backward, beautiful Subcontinent of ours - to speak, not
merely in terms of numbers of dead...not even of hundreds, or
thousands, of deaths... but of Megadeaths.
Lovely word, isn't it? Megadeath! Savour its texture, dear reader;
admire its awesome, glacial quality. It is a superbly modern word,
symbolising the kind of technologies in whose development countries
like India and Pakistan have most willingly invested.
Let us look at this thing itself, this nuclear asset of ours that our
scientists have against all obstacles reinvented.
There are four kinds of nuclear Bomb. In the kind that was dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclei of plutonium or enriched uranium are
split to release neutrons and a burst of energy; the neutrons split
more nuclei and release still more energy. If this release happens
slowly, as in an atomic reactor, it can be used to generate power. If
it happens within the fraction of a second, it is a nuclear
explosion. This kind of Fission or Atomic Bomb is useful for
disintegrating medium-sized towns or large chunks of bigger cities.
And to massacre lakhs of people at a time.
For those whose goal it is to kill, not mere lakhs, but millions of
members of the human race at a time, there is a triple action bomb.
An initial atomic bomb explosion is the trigger to create
temperatures of several million degrees and cause the nuclei of
hydrogen isotopes to fuse into helium nuclei (the fusion reaction at
the heart of our sun and the other stars), causing a still more
massive release of energy. This in turn releases further neutrons
that cause the uranium casing to go into yet another explosion that
showers down radioactive material at great distances. This device is
called a Thermonuclear or Hydrogen Bomb. It is an essential
acquisition for nations who wish to destroy bigger towns or, using
two or three at a time, whole metropolitan cities.
At a further remove, there is the enhanced radiation warhead or
Neutron Bomb. This little beauty has a relatively low "yield"
(nuclear jargon for blast-force) but it releases an enormous burst of
lethal neutrons. This is a device meant for discerning connoisseurs
of Megadeaths. Its special refinement is that, beyond the direct
blast area, buildings and installations are relatively unharmed,
while all living things (such as children, adults, cats, dogs, birds,
etc.) have been fried by the neutron barrage. Isn't that a marvellous
inversion of old-fashioned moral priorities? Yes, indeed, only for
sophisticates!
And then there is the crowning glory of this family of deadly devices
- the Cobalt Bomb. This is a "standard" Fission or Thermonuclear
device encased in a special Cobalt shell. It has also been called the
"Doomsday Weapon" because it scatters a particularly lethal and
long-lived variety of radioactive debris that, for long distances
around, will render the soil, the water and the air deadly to life
for decades afterwards. It is in more ways than one the final
culmination of the Bomb-maker's art; after this, there can be no
other.
These, dear reader, are no ordinary weapons! And more extraordinary
still are the minds that have devised and developed their various
aspects and manifestations. The Japanese people learned of nuclear
weapons in the most direct and painful of ways. They do not wish the
world to forget what was done to them...and what could happen to
others. At Hiroshima is preserved a paving stone with the shadow of a
man permanently baked into it. This person was vaporised in an
instant. But, to the extent of that instant, he retarded the fusing
of the paving stone by the Heat Flash. His shadow therefore survives
him. For all time.
It seems that, on this Subcontinent, our leaderships have so few
constructive achievements to their credit that we actually cherish
and boast about having acquired the capability of inflicting
Megadeath on others. Will these Evil Seeds actually come to be sown
to sprout their frightful mushroom-shaped blooms? No, we are told,
these are deterrents in the same way that the Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) equation between the USA and the late, lamented
USSR ensured a stable balance of terror. Not so, regrettably. The
equilibrium brought about by the opposing Cold War nuclear stockpiles
was based on the premise of substantial Second and Third strike
capabilities on both sides, i.e. that, even if one of the adversaries
were devastated by a nuclear First Strike, it would still be left
with enough nuclear wherewithal to strike back with massive Second
and perhaps even Third Strikes. This apprehension stayed the hands
that might have reached for the big, red button to mount a First
Strike.
But between India and Pakistan, there is only a First Strike
capability. This situation is inherently unstable. Far from being a
deterrent, there is a clear incentive to get in that First Strike as
quickly as possible, to devastate the adversary and eliminate his
ability to retaliate. From this follows the absolute imperative that
no words or deeds whatsoever - whether military threats or acts of
provocation or anything else - should therefore be permitted to
disturb relations between these two countries, since any kind of
conflict that arises could offer that First Strike temptation. The
consequences would, obviously, be unthinkable.
No one will ask, in the devastated aftermath, which side was at fault
or what the justice or otherwise of a particular cause. Whatever the
issues involved, there has to be absolute peace at any cost in the
Subcontinent. It's as simple as that.
The writer is a marketing consultant based in Karachi. He is also a poet
The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace
(India) calls attention once again to the urgent and
imperative need for all concerned to act in order to
avert a full-scale India-Pakistan war and a nuclear
holocaust in South Asia.
On behalf of the peace-loving people of India, the
CNDP calls upon the government of the country to end
war preparations and rhetoric and expedite a return to
normalcy in relations with Pakistan. In concert and
cooperation with the peace movement of Pakistan, the
CNDP also calls upon the government of that country to
reverse its course of reckless provocation and pave
the way for a speedy return to normalcy.
We deplore the unprecedented aggravation of tensions
by Indiaís massing of nearly a million troops on the
borders and deployment of missiles that represent a
potential nuclear menace. The Prime Minister of India
did not promote the prospects of peace when he told
Indian soldiers on the Kashmir border of the need for
'a decisive war'. The government of Pakistan has not
reassured the people of the region by retaliating with
a massing of troops on the borders and deployment of
missiles, and refusing to rule out a nuclear strike in
the countryís defence. The President of Pakistan has
not acted to allay the tensions, either, by presiding
over a threateningly timed test-firing of the Ghauri
and Ghaznavi missiles.
The Indian Prime Minister's subsequent assurance that
the war clouds have disappeared is, of course,
welcome. More is expected of him and his government,
however, than the prediction that there will be no
strike of 'lightning' to belie the promise of 'clear
skies'. The President of Pakistan has not stilled the
fears of the people of the region with his
governmentís declaration that the Ghauri and Ghaznavi
testing had nothing to do with the current war
preparations. More is expected of him, too, than
statements (as in his latest address to the nation on
May 27) of opposition to terrorism long harboured in
Pakistan.
We are amazed and outraged at the unrestrained and
utterly irresponsible nuke-rattling underway for days
now. The fact that even a 'limited' nuclear war can
cause the loss of three million lives in the two
countries, and that the situation is actually fraught
with greater and graver dangers, has apparently made
no difference to the war-mongers on both sides.
Complacency on this score is criminally unwarranted.
The CNDP calls upon both governments to renounce,
first and forthwith, the option of nuclear war in
clear and credible terms.
We reiterate our demand for an immediate pull-back by
both sides from the borders and a return of their
missiles to their peacetime sites. Nothing less can
convince the people that the danger has passed. This
should be followed up by other normalisation measures
including the resumption of people-to-people contacts
as well as transport and trade between the two
neighbouring countries.
The CNDP reiterates, too, its strong opposition to all
forms of terrorism in all places including Jammu and
Kashmir. This is a reiteration also of its conviction
that the problem of terrorism, with its cross-border
component, cannot be solved by an India-Pakistan war
but must be tackled through peaceful, political means.
We note the international pressure being exerted upon
New Delhi and Islamabad in order to avert a war. We
gratefully acknowledge, in particular, the role being
played by the global peace movement. The CNDP calls
upon the governments of India and Pakistan to
recognise and respect the weight of the world public
opinion in this regard and to act accordingly.
J.Sri Raman, Achin Vanaik and others
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace [India]
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi today charged that Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf's “provocative” address earlier this week had encouraged disruptive elements to burst a series of bombs in Ahmedabad city buses yesterday which left a dozen persons injured.
Addressing a gathering at village Varna, 60 km from here, the chief minister warned disruptive elements of stern action saying, his government would not tolerate any terror tactics.
There could be no other reason for resurfacing of violence in Gujarat where peace was prevailing for two weeks, Mr Modi opined pointing out that within 48 hours of the Musharraf speech, bombs were planted.
Earlier, he laid the foundation stone of a salinity prevention project of the Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department on the Sabarmati River. The Rs four crore-project aimed at providing water to 13 villages of Ahmedabad and Anand district after being completed in a year. A similar project would be taken up on the Mahisagar river also, Mr Modi added. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Chairman Bhupendrasinh Chudasma, Irrigation Minister Babubhai Bokhiria and local BJP MP Deepak Patel “Sathi” were among those present.
NEW DELHI MAY 30 . India may scrap the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan in the event of a war, the Minister of State for Water Resources, Bijoya Chakraborty, said today. ``If Pakistan resorts to a war with India, we will examine all options, even scrapping the treaty,'' Ms. Chakraborty told presspersons on the sidelines of an Assocham meeting. Though there was no immediate possibility of scrapping the treaty ``I do not know what will be the stand tomorrow,'' she said. ``Everything will depend on what Pakistan does''. - PTI
New Delhi, May 30: On the second day of the Permanent Indus Water Commission meeting here, the Pakistan delegation made objections on the Bagliar hydroelectric project proposed on the Chenab river by the J-K government.
Pakistan did not consider the recent changes made by India in the design of the hydro-electric plant and took a rigid stand of invoking relevant articles of the Indus Water Treaty for the settlement of the issue by neutral experts. A three-month deadline has been set to resolve the issue. ‘‘The objections are not new and have been raised by Pakistanis from 1999 onwards and are related to the design of the hydro-electric project,’’ said IWC chairman A.C. Gupta.
The 450-MW hydro-electric power project is supposed to be a ‘run of the river’ project, meaning it does not propose to store water but just uses the flow of the river to generate electricity. There is apprehension from the Pakistani side that this may not be true and hence the threat of a third party intervention in the issue.
Experts believe undue importance should not be given to the objections, the important aspect being the treaty has not been abrogated and the meeting is being held on schedule. ‘‘Pakistan has always raised objections and in the present political climate, we should not expect them to be resolved. It is natural they will come with a tough brief,’’ former water resources secretary Ramaswamy Iyer said.
The Indus water treaty came into effect from April 1, 1960 and envisaged that waters of Sutlej, Beas and Ravi would be utilised by India while those of Indus, Chenab and Jhelum by Pakistan.
SRINAGAR: Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah on Thursday said if Islamabad fails to put an end to cross-border terrorism and mortar shelling, there was nothing that could prevent the outbreak of a "major Indo-Pak war".
"If the General wants peace with India, all this shelling and cross-border terrorism has to be stopped. And if international pressure also does not work on Pakistan, then there is nothing left for us except war," he said while visiting Poonch where shelling from across the border has caused massive damage.
Attacking Pakistan for targeting civilians, Abdullah said "the enemy is determined to harm the innocent population and that is evident from what they have done here.
"Pakistan President's words do not match his action," he said.
Abdullah, who was accompanied by his son, Minister of State for External Affairs Omar Abdullah, and senior officials, including Director General of Police A K Suri, was briefed on the situation following yesterday's shelling.
He sought updating of the contingency plan for providing necessary assistance to the people and mobilisation of civil defence.
Somewhere In The Jammu Sector, May 30: The major wipes his brow. ‘‘It is hot here and is going to get hotter,’’ he says. The mercury in Jammu has crossed 35 degree Celsius but he is not talking about the weather. In fierce artillery exchanges, the Indian Army destroyed Pakistani defences in the Samba sector. By late night, Poonch was under heavy mortar attack and four persons were killed.
The whirr of the Cheetah helicopter above and heavy movement of troops and supply convoys from Jammu towards Poonch and Rajouri indicated the tense situation. Artillery, which came of age during the Kargil conflict, is playing a crucial role along the International Border at Samba, R.S.Pura and even beyond in Akhnoor, Poonch and Rajouri. And unlike in Kargil, the artillery here is well dug in.
‘‘The advantage is that we have not been rushed into this zone, like in Kargil. We had ample time to prepare and dig ourselves in,’’ says a senior officer. And he is right. On first sight, it is impossible to locate a gun position here. Hidden beneath a clump of trees behind a mound, where wild grass has already started to grow again, is an artillery position. Camouflage nets give protection both from the sky and ground.’’
‘‘What do you see ahead?’’ an artillery officer asks his mortar fire controller at the observation post. ‘‘Sir, there is heavy smoke rising from the camp. We hit bang on target. But I see some more movement,’’ he replies, giving coordinates of the location. ‘‘Good, we’ll have them tonight,’’ says the officer.
The shelling in this sector has not escalated to light and medium artillery yet though in some other sectors that stage has been reached. ‘‘An accurate mortar attack is more dangerous since it leaves very little time to react. And even the mortar fire is graduating to heavier calibers. Pakistan initially used 60-mm mortars but has already started firing 82-mm mortars both in Samba and Poonch sectors. We are responding in kind,’’ says the gun commander.
Shells of different charges, including air bursts, lie gleaming in the May sun. A young soldier takes them out of the cardboard cases and gently lays them down on a canvas. The ‘saab’ (junior commissioned officer) inspects them before waiting for instructions from the officer. Then a seven-member team prepares itself for the attack. ‘‘We have carried out drills long enough. Now we are only waiting for the instructions. As soon as they come, we shall avenge the attack on Parliament and Kaluchak,’’ says the officer inspecting the drill and nodding his head.
It’s kind of a war here though Delhi is far away. ‘‘There are several stages in a conflict. From proxy war, the situation has escalated to a hot war. Both the countries are carrying out ‘‘stand up attacks’’ on each other. We are dug into our positions and mortar firing has begun. Pakistan appears to have opened up its artillery in Poonch sector but it only has hell to buy,’’ says another officer.
‘‘Only yesterday they lost 15 soldiers in the Samba sector,’’ says a senior officer at Jammu. The Army has been listening to Pakistani intercepts and there is apprehension in the Pakistanis’ mind as to where India would retaliate for the Poonch attacks of last night.
‘‘Their officers are telling their troops to go inside bunkers and prepare for an Indian artillery attack after sundown tonight. Why tonight and why after sundown. We may retaliate anywhere - a place and time of our choosing. We may retaliate in the same sector or in another sector. It’s entirely our choice,’’ the officer adds.
India has up to 150 nuclear warheads while Pakistan can call upon only a third of that, a survey conducted by the London-based Jane's Strategic Weapons Systems said.
India has the option of delivering a 20 kilotonne device from aircraft like MiG, Jaguar and Mirage or ballistic missiles like Prithvi, Dhanush and Agni, the survey, which was released in Washington on Thursday, said.
"It is estimated that India probably has between 50 and 150 nuclear warheads available," it said.
"Analysis from some sources suggests that there is sufficient weapons grade uranium and plutonium available to India to build more warheads," it said.
The survey said Pakistan's program is less advanced, but it probably has between 25 and 50 nuclear warheads.
"Pakistan's planned yield for its larger nuclear weapons design was 20 to 25 kilotonne providing a warhead that would probably be fitted to Shaheen and Ghauri ballistic missiles."
The survey warned that any nuclear conflict between the two nations would be self-defeating, as the bombs would inflict terrible casualties on home populations as well as targeted cities.
"A nuclear strike by either country could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory since, due to the close proximity of several cities on either side of the Indo-Pakistani border, the resulting fallout could easily be blown over the attacking country," it said.
NEW DELHI: Sharply reacting to Pakistan's threat to use nuclear weapons in the event of a war, India on Thursday said that this was yet another "manifestation of loose talk" and stepped up its diplomatic offensive against Islamabad stating its position on the current situation on the border.
Responding to Pakistan Ambassador to UN Munir Akram's remarks that Islamabad had never subscribed to the no-first use of nuclear weapons, external affairs ministry spokesperson Nirupama Rao said "this is yet another manifestation of loose talk and irresponsible statements emanating from Pakistan."
As threat of Indo-Pak war continued to loom, French Foreign Minister Dominic de Villepin spoke to External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh emphasising that Pakistan must honour its commitment to stop export of terrorism to India.
Foreign secretary Chokila Iyer had separate meetings with the Ambassadors of China, Bangladesh and Nepal to brief them on India's position.
Shashank, secretary (ER) in the the external affairs ministry, met the Ambassador of Asean countries to tell them about India's position on the current stand-off with Pakistan.
Kanwar Sibal, secretary (West) in the external affairs ministry, is currently in Madrid for consultations with the European Union president and later he will go to Rome for foreign office consultations.
India's diplomatic offensive came a day after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf decided to send envoys to the US, Europe and some Muslim countries to explain Islamabad's position.
Washington May 30. Pakistan says it will resort to nuclear weapons even in a conventional war and that India should not have the ``licence to kill'', the country's new Ambassador to the United Nations, Munir Akram, told a news conference in New York today.
``India should not have the licence to kill with conventional weapons while Pakistan's hands are tied regarding other means to defend itself,'' he said.
Mr. Akram's comments - seen in some quarters as provocative - did not elicit any immediate response from diplomats or officials at the U.N.
His utterances come at a time when there is the definite feeling here and elsewhere that one way of lowering the temperature in the subcontinent is for both sides to stay away from inflammatory rhetoric.
Islamabad is using the U.N. to put its case across and, in the process, urging the Security Council to take up not just the issue of tension along the border with India but also the question of Kashmir.
``Whenever there is threat of use of force against a member-state and threat to international peace and security, there is an obligation for the Council to address that situation,'' Mr. Akram said and stressed that the Security Council had the responsibility of addressing the Kashmir issue.
The U.N. Secretary-General and other member-states had obligations to implement the Security Council Resolutions.
He said Britain had suggested that a 300-strong helicopter monitoring force be deployed along the Kashmir border. According to Mr. Akram, the proposal was made during the recent visit of the British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, to Islamabad. Pakistan would consider the proposal if India too accepted it, Mr. Akram was quoted as saying.
Britain apparently told Pakistan that it had carried out a study and concluded such a force would be sufficient to monitor the LoC.
Mr. Akram defined what constituted ``aggression'' by India that would be responded to by Pakistan.
``Any action by India to attack across the Line of Control, across the International Border, any aerial attack on our territory, any attack on our assets like shipping, any action to economically strangulate Pakistan - all of these will be acts of aggression by India and will be responded to by Pakistan,'' he said.
NEW DELHI MAY 30. The U.S. Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is arriving here next month as part of an intensified Anglo-American diplomatic initiative to defuse military tensions between India and Pakistan.
Without mentioning the dates, the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, Nirupama Rao, said Mr. Rumsfeld was expected here after the visit of the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, to the subcontinent early next month. Mr. Armitage will arrive in India on the evening of June 6 after a day-long visit to Pakistan.
Analysts here said the U.S. Defence Department was concerned about the possible derailment of its Afghan operations if a war broke out between India and Pakistan. Already Pakistan, Government sources said, had pulled out two divisions from the Afghan border and positioned them on the border with India. While one division has been repositioned in Rawalpindi, the second has joined the Army Reserve South (ARS), the strike formation deployed on the banks of the Sutlej.
The news of Mr. Rumsfeld's visit comes amid reports about U.S. plans to conduct a massive airlift of its troops and citizens from the subcontinent.
Diplomatic activity related to the Indo-Pakistani stand-off today saw a telephonic conversation between the French Foreign Minister and the External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh. Also, the Foreign Secretary, Chokila Iyer, met the Chinese Ambassador to India. The meeting assumes significance in the light of the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee's visit next week to Almaty in Kazakhstan for the CICA conference, where the Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, will also be present. India wants the Sino-Indian border to remain calm as the troops who were deployed there have been switched to the border with Pakistan.
India has sought a meeting with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, on the sidelines of the summit. Rejecting the view that the meeting with Mr. Putin was likely to witness a Russian mediatory role in the Indo-Pakistani stand-off, the spokesperson said talks with the Russian President were part of bilateral consultations at the highest level. Ms. Iyer also met the Ambassadors of Nepal and Bangladesh, while the Special Secretary (East) in the Ministry of External Affairs, R.M. Abhyankar, met envoys from the South-East Asian countries. The Foreign Secretary-designate, Kanwal Sibal, is in Madrid for consultations with the European Union.
Keen to retain the focus on terrorism, India took exception to Pakistan's attempt to "deflect" international attention by threatening it with a nuclear response.
NEW DELHI: India today ruled out any possibility of a meeting between Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in Almaty, where they would be attending a 16-nation security conference beginning June 3.
"We don't see any possibility," a spokesperson of the external affairs ministry told reporters here when asked whether the two leaders would have a meeting there.
She said that External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh had already made a statement that such a meeting was not on the cards.
As far as the possibility of a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Vajpayee in Almaty was concerned, they would share their views on the emergent situation to further strengthen mutual consultations.
Besides Russia, India and Pakistan, the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) has Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Khirgistan, Mongolia, Palestine, Tajikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan as its members.
India and Russia were in constant touch at the levels of foreign ministers and ambassadors, she said.
Vajpayee and Putin recently shared views, she said, adding, Russia had asked Pakistan to stop terorirst activity from the territory under its control directed against India.
The Russian government was seized of India's concern, she said.
ISLAMABAD MAY 30. After threatening to unleash a storm if Indian forces set foot on Pakistan's soil, the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, today scaled down his rhetoric by offering the guarantee that his country will not initiate a war.
``All that I can do is give my own assurance that we will try to avoid conflict. It will be the utmost endeavour to avoid conflict. I have been saying all along that conflict will only take place here if it is initiated by India. We will not be the initiators. This is my guarantee," he told reporters here.
Gen. Musharraf has in the past two days increased the tempo of the military tensions by issuing a series of warnings to take the war into Indian territory.
Asked what message he had for the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, Gen. Musharraf said: ``I am a soldier and know what destruction it (war) causes. I know what happens when your colleagues suffer, and maybe even die. I understand the miseries of war. There is need for both sides to avoid war. This is my message to Mr. Vajpayee," he said after signing the trilateral gas pipeline project involving Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan.
To a question on mediation, he said: ``Any mediation helps. It does serve a good purpose. We encourage mediation. (The British Foreign Secretary) Jack Straw came here and we had a frank discussion with him. I am sure such third-party interaction do help defuse the situation.''
Asked whether Pakistani troops were being moved from the Afghan borders and re-deployed along the border with India, Gen. Musharraf said: ``We are very seriously contemplating moving some elements out of these onto the east, if at all tensions remain as high as they are now."
He, however, said the movement of troops had not yet started.
A military statement had earlier said that ``a contingent of Pakistan troops commenced its movement from the western border to reinforce Pakistan troops deployed along the eastern border'' in a ``readjustment in view of the adverse posture of the Indian armed forces.''
Gen. Musharraf said that Pakistan's first priority was its own security and none should grudge it. ``If Pakistan is subjected to aggression, all our resources will be posted where they are needed most," he said adding that it all depended on the situation at the border with India and some them might be moved from there. - PTI
Even at the height of the long and bitter cold war, the N-threat was
rarely, if ever, made public. By an implicit consensus, all nuclear
speculation was kept outside the public domain, lest it should cause
alarm or grant the use of the N-option a semblance of plausibility.
Such questions were therefore confined to the anonymous safety of
classified dossiers and MAD doctrines. But ignorance, as we all know,
is bliss.
Particularly ignorance of the N-kind. This is perhaps the only
'rational' explanation for the irrationality that has currently
gripped subcontinental leaders and security experts on the question
of a nuclear confrontation. Scarcely a day has passed in the last few
weeks when the phrase - call it first strike, exchange or engagement
- has not been casually invoked as if it was an option like any other
in the event of a war.
Admittedly, discretion has often been a rather insubstantial part of
political valour in the subcontinent, but blithe N-pronouncements are
irresponsible in the extreme. As an accompanying piece on this page
makes only too clear, the horrors of a nuclear conflagration are too
frightful to even humanly imagine, much less rationally comprehend
and, then, learn to live with. Yet this is precisely what our leaders
and experts have set out to achieve.
Many have gone out of their way to rubbish as motivated and alarmist
the 'scare' stories that have emanated from western academic and
military institutions about the human consequences of a nuclear
strike. Unfortunately, by focusing on the 'quantitative' dimensions
of the holocaust - anywhere between four million and 12 million
fatalities - these have failed to bring home the true magnitude of
human suffering. But then again this is perhaps an unfair criticism.
As N-capable nations, it is not the white man's burden but our own to
know what the use of these weapons entails. Equally, if we on the
subcontinent are not sufficiently overwhelmed by such doomsday
scenarios, then that says something about us and our civilisation or
what has become of it.
It reflects the extent to which the two neighbours have demonised the
other, that it is possible to even contemplate inflicting such
enormous pain and suffering on the other, even at the certain risk of
facing an identical fate. Unless we realise that while being two
separate nations, both India and Pakistan share a common humanity
and, beyond that, a common history and civilisation, the Damocles'
sword of N-annihilation will hang over us indefinitely. It is a
psychological truism that our most hated enemies are those in whom we
recognise something of ourselves.
Nuclear facilities in India adopt internationally accepted guidelines
for ensuring their safe operations and safety to the public and the
environment. An independent regulatory authority -- the Department of
Atomic Energy -- oversees their safe operations.
The union government has come out with a series of dos and don'ts in
case of a nuclear disaster in the country. Thus, if there is 'a
nuclear emergency in your area':
DO the following immediately:
1. Go indoors. Stay inside.
2. Switch on the radio/television and look out for public
announcements from your local authority.
3. Close doors/windows.
4. Cover all food, water and consume only such covered items.
5. If in the open, cover your face and body with a wet
handkerchief, towel, dhoti or sari. Return home, change/remove
clothes. Have a complete wash and use fresh clothing.
6. Extend full cooperation to local authorities and obey their
instructions completely -- be it for taking medication, evacuation,
etc.
The government has also issued five DON'TS. They are:
1. Do not panic.
2. Do not believe in rumours passed on by word of mouth from one
person to another.
3. Do not stay outside/or go outside.
4. As far as possible, AVOID water from open wells/ponds;
exposed crops and vegetables; food, water or milk from outside.
5. Do not disobey any instruction of the district or civil
defence authorities who would be doing their best to ensure the
safety of you, your family and your property.
The Department of Atomic Energy is the nodal agency in India in
respect of man made nuclear emergencies. In 1987, the DAE constituted
a Crisis Management Group to deal with any nuclear disaster that
could occur in the country.
As per the DEA rules, the CMG is immediately activated and will
coordinate between the local authorities in the event of a nuclear
disaster.
In the event of any other type of nuclear emergency in the public
domain arising from the unauthorised presence or suspected presence
of nuclear materials, a booklet giving the essential guidelines to be
followed has been circulated to state governments and local
authorities.
Among other steps mentioned, the guidelines require that the nearest
listed DAE facility as well as the DAE Emergency Control Room be
contacted immediately, who would then advise the further necessary
steps to be taken to attend to the emergency.
For all its clarity, the guidelines seem to have left out one
important instruction: when all else fails, pray.
It is a contemporary irony that though India can launch a nuclear
attack, it cannot defend itself against one.
"We do have a printed disaster management manual, but it is three
decades old," says All India Institute of Medical Sciences spokesman
Bijoy Kumar Dash. "We have little knowledge regarding the handling of
a fallout of nuclear attacks -- we are not oriented to handle it,
that is the defence ministry's problem."
Is that right? As per the existing structure, it is in fact the
health ministry that has to deal with the fallout of a nuclear
strike, or even a biological attack. The AIIMS and National Institute
of Communicable Diseases are the two nodal centres identified by the
ministry for providing emergency services.
But neither department has been brought into the loop as yet. In
fact, while discussing with the media the issue of preparedness to
handle the possible fallout of a nuclear strike, Union Health
Minister Dr C P Thakur said on May 23 that the ministry has
identified possible centres to monitor nuclear fallout and biological
attacks, and to isolate targeted populations. He added his ministry
is in touch with the Department of Atomic Energy in this connection.
The more you delve, the more you realise that far from being ready to
cope with nuclear fallout, various Indian government ministries are
trying to figure out just where the buck stops.
Meanwhile, on the ground, preparedness levels are non-existent. "We
have two magnetic resonance machines," says Dr Rama Jayasundar, the
Cambridge-trained nuclear physicist and associate professor at AIIMS,
"but even now, the waiting list for patients is six months. If there
is a nuclear attack, many more such machines will be required, to
detect the effects of a nuclear fallout on the DNA of those affected."
Asked to hypothetically imagine the aftermath of a nuclear strike, Dr
Jayasunder said, "Burn injuries, an environmental disaster, psychic
and gynaecological problems at best, to total destruction at worst.
You know us Indians, we are never prepared, we take things as they
come. We are not prepared to handle the fallout of a nuclear war, we
have not even thought about it."
Dash goes a step further, and argues that there is, in any case, not
much anyone can do in such a situation. "If a nuclear attack takes
place, no level of preparedness is good enough," the AIIMS spokesman
argues. "In fact, our doctors might run away if asked to serve in
such areas. The army will manage emergency health service
requirements in such areas."
That pretty much sums it up as far as official thinking goes -- it
may not happen; and if it does, it is some other department's
problem. Meanwhile, the defence ministry is not forthcoming, and
civilian experts are unprepared.
One problem with preparing, say experts, is that they don't know what
to prepare for. "Our knowledge is based on what happened in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki," argues Dr Amit Roy, director, Nuclear Sciences Centre.
"From those two instances, what do we know? That there will be a
blast that releases tremendous amounts of energy in less than a
millisecond, with temperatures going up to several million degrees
Celsius; that this will create a hot sphere of air -- the famous
fireball -- that will rise up like a hot air balloon; that everything
in the target zone will get vaporized; that thermal and nuclear
radiation will follow."
As per information made available to them, says Dr Roy, Pakistan's
nuclear warheads range from 10 to 20 kilotons, which are about the
size of those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"If that is true, then in a one kilometre area around the detonation
site, nothing can be saved," says Dr Roy. "Beyond that, people will
be affected by radiation, the degree lessening as we go further out.
I would suggest that, in case of a nuclear attack, there are very few
precautions anyone can take. At best, we can keep teams ready to
handle radioactive fallout. Second, individuals can start living in
bunkers that are more than two metres deep. Thirdly, you can
immediately wash the body with water, then contact specialist
doctors. But I must repeat that if you are anywhere close to where
the bomb hits, then nothing can save you. That is a catastrophe, and
I don't think too many nations in the world are prepared to handle
something of that kind."
The refrain is unanimous -- no, we haven't thought about it; no, we
are not ready to handle it; no, there is no point in preparing anyway.
"We as scientists are not ready. The general public is not ready. The
government is not ready. As far as I know, no special teams have been
formed," says Dr Roy. "I am sure the government must be taking some
steps, now," he adds, optimistically.
Karachi May 31
The world is still essaying to figure out what did General Pervez
Musharraf say in his May 27 televised address. The difficulty arises
only
when people go merely by the wording he has used, his tone and the body
language that went with the words. His message has to be deciphered in
terms of indicated of action as well as the pressures impinging on him
from
various quarters.
The outside pressures are of course clear. They pertain to separate
facets of Pakistani policy, though there is linkage between these.
One
deals with the still continued mopping up operations in Afghanistan as
also
inside Pakistan where fugitive Taliban and al Qaeda people are said to
have
infiltrated. The reports the Americans receive from the media and by the
spooks say that these elements are hiding in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas of NWFP and are said to be now engaged in regrouping with a
view to organising operations against the International Coalition that
has
defeated them. Pakistan has been under intense American pressure to
permit
them a more or less free hand to use their Special Forces and its CIA
and
FBI in pursuing and nabbing them.
Earlier reports said that Pakistan was hesitant to allow them this
freedom
to operate on their own account. An adverse local reaction was feared.
That pressure seems to have abated somewhat. It does seem as if the
Americans saw the danger and have arrived at some kind of a compromise
formula, though it may be under fresh threat from the reported Pakistani
intention of withdrawing some of its army from NWFP's FATA so as to
deploy
it on the borders with India and on the LoC. It would seem as if the
American interests in dissipating India Pakistan tension have been
reinforced by the need of joint Pakistan-American operations inside
Pakistan.
At present an unending line of high level envoys is visiting Islamabad
and
New Delhi and all of them demand restraint from both Pakistan and India.
It was likely to be climaxed with the visit of US Deputy Secretary of
State
Richard Amitage. Now the Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has also
decided
to use his personal clout with these two recalcitrant nuclear powers.
Meantime US Secretary of State Colin Powell has been bombarding New
Delhi
and Islamabad with phone calls. Even the US President got into the act
and
said twice in two days that Pakistan should do more. This is the refrain
of
almost all envoys for whom the focal point for 'doing more' is
Islamabad.
Chances of Pakistan saying no to the international chorus for
'doing more'
to stop "cross border terrorism" are slim, despite brave words. The
fierce
warlike rhetoric, according to most international observers, has been a
cover for a political retreat on the vital question of Kashmiri Jihad.
The
kind of assurances that Pakistan has been giving to major donor
countries
would show that the Musharraf'reiteration of Jan 12, speech was not
proforma. Moreover, he had to mean it. Or else the rest of the world
would
make his life miserable and soon. He has to employ verbal furies to
impress
domestic audience with his steadfast and patriotic stand. A military
regime
cannot but believe in the politics of God and country. But when it comes
to
the details of what has to be done, even the military cannot be
unmindful
of the facts of life. And these are clear and are forcing Pakistan to
extend the logic of its post 9/11 decision to Kashmir also.
The litmus test of this would be if the Indians do launch a military
operation of some kind, no matter howsoever limited or unlimited. Most
international observers however do not expect such an Indian action both
because the dynamics of military action now would involve an all-out
war,
which probably might be nuclear also. But they also see no reason why
Pakistan would necessarily wish to convert a limited action into a
nuclear
exchange. After all the two sides are supposed to have already deployed
tactical nuclear weapons even inside their respective areas of Kashmir.
The stories that are coming out of Islamabad speak of
Pakistan being as
much a target of terrorism and by approximately by the same set of
people
--- the elements of Jaish-i- Mohammad and Lashkar-i-Taiba who seem to
have
reorganised themselves into the Alami Hizbollah --- as is India. The
many
terrorist attacks in Pakistan, the latest being on the French personnel
in
Karachi earlier in May, is said to be by this new Hizb. Its aim is
claimed
to be the overthrow of Musharraf regime. But it is not restricted to
just
this. Its terrorist attacks on Indian targets are meant to incite a war
between the two countries. It has been claimed that their minds somehow
do
not flinch from the thought of a nuclear winter descending on many parts
of
India and Pakistan.
It would seem that Islamabad has found a new ground for joint
India-Pakistan action against terrorism, Kashmir especially included.
Probably more is likely to be heard of this idea in future.
Meantime, President Musharraf is also vigorously playing the domestic
political game. He is taking full mileage out of the warlike rhetoric
emanating from India, with appeals to the opposition to eschew its
politics
and to line up behind him for the sake of patriotism. This is standard
conservative politics in situations like this. President's actions at
home
are telltale.
He is softening his own position toward the main opposition parties:
PML(N) and PPP of Benazir Bhutto. It is however true that he still
cannot
abide by the persons of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. These two are
still being kept out. But minus these two, both parties are being
actively
courted. But more interestingly he is wooing even more assiduously
another
alliance of religious parties called MMA ( Muttahida Majalis-i-Amal).
It
comprises the same gentry that was supporting Taliban regime and was
opposed to Musharraf's U-turn on Afghanistan. He has just made a
gestures
to them, which has significance of its own.
There used to be a certain declaration in the voter registration form.
That declaration said that I am a Muslim and I believe that Prophet
Mohammad was the last Prophet. This was made obligatory because
Qadianis
had been declared a non-Muslim religious minority, quite separate from
Muslims. The finality of the prophet was meant to exclude Ahmadis or
Qadianis.
The whole of the declaration had however become redundant after the new
decision of the military government in favour of joint electorates for
the
coming elections. If all religious communities, including Qadianis,
were
to vote for a common candidate, what was the need for this declaration.
The decision about joint electorates, so far, stands, making the idea of
re-inserting this declaration pointless and foolish. But it has been
done
on the insistence of the religious lobby and MMA comprises just this
lobby.
The regime had tom tommed its liberal character by opting for joint
electorates. The question is if this trend holds and steady change in
the
Musharraf's thinking continues, would joint voters' lists survive? This
trend represents his retreat from the earlier Kamalism in the name of
moderate and modern Islamic state. This would be a more accurate measure
of
judging where Musharraf may end up taking Pakistan. But then the idea of
joint fight with India against terrorism will have withered on the vine.
Alarmed by war clouds in the Indo-Pak region, the United States, Britain, Germany, Australia, Denmark and New Zealand on Friday decided to reduce the levels of non-essential diplomatic staff and their families in India and advised their nationals against travelling to the region.
The US authorised the voluntary departure of all non-essential diplomats and their dependents from India, saying they could not rule out a worsening of the crisis with Pakistan.
According to the US state department, an estimated 60,000 US nationals currently in India have also been advised to leave the country.
The warning by the US referred to artillery exchanges between Indian and Pakistani troops along the border and also the possibility of terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda against Americans, the advisory, which was also issued by its embassy in New Delhi, said.
Dependents of non-essential US personnel in the embassy and US Consulates in Calcutta, Mumbai and Chennai were also encouraged to depart at government expense, it said.
Britain also decided to reduce the level of its 'less-essential' high commission staff and dependents in India and advised its nationals against travelling to India in the wake of continuing Indo-Pak standoff.
An estimated 20,000 UK nationals are in India at present, according to the British foreign office.
In a statement released by the Foreign Office in London British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "On Wednesday in New Delhi, I said that whilst the situation between India and Pakistan was dangerous, war was not inevitable. That remains my view, and we are all working as hard as we can to secure a peaceful resolution of this long-standing conflict."
"However, I do have a clear duty of care in respect both of UK citizens, and of UK staff in diplomatic posts abroad. As a precautionary measure, I have therefore decided to amend our travel advice to India. This now advises, for the time being, against travel to India, and gives more detailed in-country advice. British nationals there should consider leaving."
"We will also offer dependants of British government staff and less-essential staff themselves the chance to return home if they choose; we will continue to offer a visa service, but at a reduced level."
In a live statement broadcast across national television from his parliamentary constituency in Blackburn, Straw added that the action announced was different from an earlier announcement last week with regard to Pakistan when London announced a compulsory reduction in diplomatic staffing levels at the British diplomatic missions in Islamabad, Karachi and Lahore.
That decision, Straw explained, was based on his assessment of the security threats to UK personnel and assets in Pakistan from militant terrorist groups operating there.
He emphasised that the latest advice for India was precautionary, adding, "Its always difficult in situations like this between appearing to be too fearful and appearing to be too complacent. Making the right balanced judgements, calibrating these things is always difficult. But what we have to be is prudent and careful."
US state department spokesman Richard Boucher on Thursday had said: "We have done an ordered departure of our personnel from Pakistan and given the public the advice to defer travel. We have given the advice to defer travel to India now. And we have to consider whether an ordered or authorised departure might be appropriate for our personnel in India as well, given the rise in the level of tensions in the region."
US Secretary of State Colin Powell had also said that his country is reviewing the presence of its diplomats and citizens in India in the wake of rising military tension with Pakistan.
"We are examining what our policy should be with respect to any draw down of our presence in the country, and when we are through with that review and have consulted with others in the administration as well as our allies, we will be making the appropriate announcement if any change is warranted," Powell had told the Public Broadcasting Network on Thursday night.
He said his department has put out advisories to travellers that it would be best to avoid travelling into the region right now.
The US has already evacuated most of its diplomats and citizens from Pakistan.
Meanwhile, New Zealand said it was pulling out all relatives of its diplomatic personnel in New Delhi.
"Dependants of staff at the High Commission in New Delhi are in the process of leaving now," foreign ministry spokesman Brad Tattersfield said.
Australia has also made arrangements for evacuating its citizens in the event of an Indo-Pak conflict, but hoped that such a situation would not arise.
"There are standing precautionary arrangements in place for the evacuation of Australian nationals in case of a war," Australian Prime Minister John Howard said, according to a report from Sydney.
Agencies with inputs from Aziz Haniffa in Washington, Shyam Bhatia in London
index | HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |