Crisis India-Pakistan:
Achtergrondinformatie, analyse en nieuws
uit de Indiase, Pakistaanse en internationale media.

index

The Hindu, May 31, 2002
Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Misplaced jingoism

By Rajeev Dhavan

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.

index

The Hindustan Times, May 31, 2002

Limited war is a fantasy

by Praful Bidwai

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.

index

The Hindu, 31 May 2002
Opinion - News Analysis

A road map to peace

By L. Ramdas and Arjun Makhijani

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.)

index

The Times of India, Friday, May 31, 2002

The alternative to my nuclear Ark

by Sonia Jabbar

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)

index

The Telegraph (Calcutta), 31 May 2002

Kashmir wants polls, not war

from Shrabani Basu

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.

index

The Daily Times (Lahore), Friday, May 31, 2002 Main News

Loving the bomb

Salman Tarik Kureshi

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

index

Fri, 31 May 2002 10:12:11 +0500

Avert A War, And Worse, In South Asia:
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace

From: ACHIN VANAIK

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]

index

The Deccan Herald, May 31, 2002

Musharraf's address sparked blasts: Modi

ANAND (Gujarat), May 30 (UNI)

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.

index

The Hindu, May 31, 2002

'Treaty may be scrapped if there is war with Pak.'

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

index

The Indian Express, May 31, 2002

Pak raises same old objections over J-K project, India unruffled

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.

index

The Times of India, May 31, 2002

Unabated shelling could lead to Indo-Pak war: Farooq

PTI [ THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 4:23:19 PM ]

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.

index

The Indian Express, May 31, 2002

This isn’t Kargil, it will be on our terms

Gaurav C. Sawant

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.

index

Rediff.com, May 31, 2002

Indian nuclear arsenal dwarfs Pakistan's: Jane's

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.

index

The Times of India, May 31, 2002

Diplomatic offensive stepped up against Pak

PTI [ THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 9:24:59 PM ]

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.

index

The Hindu, May 31, 2002

Pak. threatens to use n-weapons

By Sridhar Krishnaswami

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.

index

The Hindu, May 31, 2002

Rumsfeld, Armitage visiting India

By Atul Aneja

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.

index

The Times of India, May 31, 2002

No PM, Musharraf talks at Almaty

PTI [ THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2002 8:16:07 PM ]

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.

index

The Hindu, May 31, 2002

We should avoid war: Musharraf

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

index

The Times of India, May 31, 2002
EDITORIAL:

Ground zero hour for India-Pakistan

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.

index

Rediff.com, May 31, 2002

Indian govts has come out with a series of dos and don'ts in case of a nuclear disaster

The Rediff Special/ George Iype

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.

index

Rediff.com, May 31, 2002

India can launch a nuclear attack, it cannot defend itself against one

The Rediff Special/ Sheela Bhatt

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.

index

May 31, 2002

Ground for joint India-Pakistan action against terrorism, Kashmir especially included

M. B. Naqvi

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.

index

Rediff.com, May 31, 2002

US, UK advise 80,000 of their nationals to leave India

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

Landelijke India Werkgroep - 5 juni 2002