Nuclear perfidy

By Surendra Mohan Dr.

Khan, father of the Pakistan's nuclear bomb, who had assembled the nuclear technology by stealing the secrets while working in Netherlands and then by trading them to get various items necessary for manufacturing the device, has been pardoned by Pakistan's President Musharraf..

It was on the basis of a decision made by the cabinet of the country that the apology of Dr.

Khan was accepted.

When the investigations about Khan's supply of nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea exposed his whole game, he quietly accepted entire responsibility for the operations.

He thereby absolved the armed forces, the Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI) and the boss of the armed forces himself, that is, President Musharraf, from any involvement in these operations.

As several commentators have pointed out, an operation on such a big scale for such a long time which involved the expenditure of billions of dollars, could not have been hidden from the armed forces, their chiefs and the ISI.

How it remained hidden from the CIA, an agency which prides in its know- all capabilities, is still a mystery.

However, its director claims that his agency broke into Dr.

It is obvious that the unconditional apology of Dr.Khan has been master- minded and secured by threatening to deal with him with utmost severity.

Pakistan has, however, a proper alibi.

After India exploded a nuclear device in Pokhran in 1974, Z.A.

Bhutto, the then ruler of the country, swore that his country must produce a bomb, in order to match India's.

This, he said, would have to be done even if Pakistani people had to eat grass.

The nuclear arms race, started by the then Government in New Delhi, was brought to dead heat by the NDA Government in 1998 when it exploded five devices.

Khan, fully supported and funded by his Government, went about the business of developing the device and sharing the knowledge that he had acquired in exchange of components necessary for completing that mission.

The press has reported that on several occasions, one or the other Army Chief or even a Prime Minister was informed of the lavish style of living and huge assets of Dr.

Khan and his senior colleagues, but no one bothered about it.

The reason was obvious; he was getting all the patronage from whoever came into power.

Now that he and his colleagues have been caught red- handed, he is being made the scapegoat.

The new story -line is that he has earned vast amounts of money in these illegal transactions and as President Musharraf commented, all that he was doing was for profit and out of greed.

While India can hardly complain that a nuclear arms race in the sub -continent is on, it is utterly hypocritical for the establishments in Islamabad and Rawalpindi (the Army Headquarters) to deny their responsibility.

It is even more ridiculous that the USA's rulers are backing the regime which has defied non- proliferation which they have been preaching to the whole world.

It was not long ago that the USA and her cronies had imposed sanctions against India and Pakistan for exploding nuclear devices.

The USA and the United Kingdom launched a murderous attack on Iraq by accusing her of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

They have not found any proof of the alleged stockpiles.

On the other hand, the Chief Weapons Inspector of the USA, Dr.

Kay, has, after a thorough inquiry, concluded that he had not found any proof of such weapons.

Both the US and the British Governments have been under extreme pressures for holding impartial inquiries into the allegations that there were intelligence failures of great magnitude.

Both have instituted such inquiries.

One has, however,to keep his/her fingers crossed o see how the British inquiry turns out to be, after the experience of the one headed by Lord Hutton.

As for the USA, the findings of the inquiry will only be known after the election of the President, so that one can safely assume that it will not be influenced by power considerations.

However, the reaction of the USA and her friends who stood by her in committing the crime of destroying Iraq towards Pakistan has been blatantly partial.

They know that Pakistan was exporting the knowledge of manufacturing nuclear weapons.

This was nothing if not nuclear proliferation.

The USA has been pressurising all non- nuclear countries to accept the Non- Proliferation Treaty.

Now that Pakistan has been proved to be guilty of the offence, te USA has kept quiet and has justified the pardon which the President of Pakistan has given to Dr.

This utter partisanship is being explained away by citing the pressure which Musharraf has to face from the armed forces and the hard -line Muttahidda Majlis- e- Amal (MMA).

On the other hand, Msharraf's support to the USA's ongoing though fruitless search for Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues in the Al Quaeda and her wars on the innocent peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq is the real cause for this partisan behaviour.

More than that, the USA is keen to control the damage which her standing in west Asia in general and the Islamic world in particular has suffered owing to these dances of death and her consistent and total solidarity with Israel against the Palestinians.

The only apprehension that the US administration might entertain is that Al Qaeda might not have secured the secrets that Dr.

Khan was selling.

Since the CIA and other spy agencies have no track of Osama or Mulla Omer, there is no way of ascertaining the facts.

It is quite possible that after the storm in Pakistan ebbs, Musharraf will quietly turn Dr.

Khan and his colleagues over to it for intense questioning.

One assurance the US administration, However, neither Iran nor Libya had any love lost for the fanatic Osama Bin Laden.

Thus, no secrets could fall into the latter's hands through them or, for that matter, from North Korea.

Yet, in the climate of strong anti- US emotions all over the anti- imperialist groups, no one can safely predict that nuclear armaments will remain secure in the hands of the few who officially control them.

As for Pakistan, even the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has differed from the view of the US administration for soft- pedalling the recent disclosures.

Those who have always campaigned for a nuclear weapon free world look at the whole episode, and in particular, the USA's silence as disastrous.

These are to be condemned by the entire civilised community which has been demanding that manufacture of all such devices must cease and the existing nuclear stockpiles be destroyed by agreeing upon a phased program of denuclearising the world.

India can lead such an effort by mobilising international public pressure and by offering to phase out her own nuclear devices.

The World Social Forum and the Mumbai Resistance, held only a month back, have shown the spirit of utter disquiet at the present state of armed nuclear conflict at various points within the world community.

Until such time that these weapons exist in such large numbers as one and a half hundred thousand, human beings cannot take security of their lives for granted, nor the survival of the human race.

The huge amounts of money needed to keep them in state could be diverted to eliminating hunger, disease or illiteracy from the face of the earth.

Nevertheless, the Powers that be would hardly think constructively, unless the masses force them.

Prospects of Indo-Pak peace process By Balraj Puri A part of the strength of Atal Bihari Vajpayee lies in the fact that he is a master of contradictions and ambiguities, He has demonstrated in good measure, this skill in dealing with Pakistan.

Two years ago, he gave a call for "Aar Ya Paar" to give expression to sense of national outrage against terrorist attack on Parliament.

Now he represents a contradictory Indian urge for peace with its neighbour.

Similarly when asked what would be the framework of internal dialogue with separatists in Kashmir, he was delightfully ambigious when he said "in the framework of Insaniat"; though in politics and constitution there is no such term.

Following 12/13, Indian forces were mobilised on its western border in a far more massive manner than done in peace time ever before.

Navy was moved from Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea.

Air, rail and road links with Pakistan were snapped.

Diplomatic relations and diplomatic staff in the High Commissions were reduced to the minimum, as the commissions remained headless.

Having reached the brink, the Prime Minister initiated reverse measures; without any apparent gain.

He skilfully and gracefully dismantled, block by block, the wall of distrust that had been built up between the two countries.

Of course, a number of factors helped the process.

Pakistan was more than grateful for every overture of goodwill from India and responded by its owns moves to confidence building measures.

Its proxy war against India was becoming counter productive.

Militants not only were getting alienated from the people of Kashmir but were also posing threat to stability of Pakistan and had threatened the life of President Musharraf.

Internationally Pakistan was totally solated on the issue of export of terror to India.

India's own compulsions for normalisation of relations with Pakistan were no less compelling.

Firstly limits of what was called coercive diplomacy were soon exposed.

Given the international situation, India could neither afford nor win a decisive war against Pakistan.

The threat implied in the unprecedented mobilisation of forces proved to be empty.

Secondly while India's status as an emerging power and strength of its economy and political system were universally recognised, it received ample advice and warning that it would not grow to its full potential and even a status of a regional power till it normalised its relations with Pakistan.

Finally, ground swell of popular goodwill in the two countries for each other left no choice for the two governments but to give up the path of confrontation.

However, despite all these exceedingly favourable factors and qualities of leadership of the Prime Minister, we have just reached back to the stage from where we had started drifting.

Except hyped hopes the relations between the two countries are at a level which should normally exist between the two neighbours in peace time despite their differences.

For a real breakthrough a far better understanding of Pakistan and its problems with India is needed.

The stated positions as also uninstated bottomlines of the two countries on Kashmir continue to be irreconcilable.

Even if India's condition of stopping of cross border terrorism in Kashmir is met, can it accept Musharraf's offer to meet him half way? How would India respond to pressure of its foreign friends to find out a solution to meet what they consider to be aspirations of the people of the state? How long can we succeed in keeping Kashmir on the back burner? What can we do to satisfy Pakistan's other demands and expectations.

Let us admit that we lack institutionalised or individual expertise either on Kashmir or on Pakistan whose objective knowledge is universally respected; within and outside the country notwithstanding a large number of propagandists and publicits.

Both the subjects can hardly be discussed in the space of this article.

Some tentative hypotheses are here suggested which could be further developed to form a basis of a rational Pakistan policy.

Firstly there are formidable difficulties in building lasting friendship at the national level.

For the basis of nationhood of the two countries is vastly different.

Pakistan is still debating its ideological basis and whether such a basis is at all necessary for building a nation.

Similarly there is a debate going or, in that country about its historiography.

The contrast in India on both the counts is striking.

Further, many people in India are still not reconciled to the fact of the partition.

Some treat it as partition of limbs of Bharat Mata which is an unforgivable sin.

Others well meaning friends of Pakistan hopes that process of friendship will eventually lead to undoing of the partition and like the East and West Germany, the two brothers of the sub continent will eventually unite.

None of these sentiments can be acceptable by Pakistan and be a basis of friendly relations.

However, if we transcend national identities, there are powerful bonds between the peoples of the two countries at super national and sub national level.

South Asian identity not only gives a sense a common pride on the basis of equality to nationals of all the countries in the region but also promise, them prospects of economic development, political stability and international respectability.

As by far the largest and powerful country, consolidation of South Asian identity would enhance India's regional and international status.

For this reason, it harmed its own national interest by keeping the SMR conference under suspension by treating its role therein as a hostage to its relation with Pakistan.

Again, the vision of the South Asia that the Prime Minister presented makes an amend to the past lapse.

But in view of India's special position in the region, it can afford and it is in its enlightened interest to take unilateral steps to meet the genuine needs of its neighbours.

It does not behove it to be provoked by minor irritants or to expect reciprocity in every measure from them.

Similarly the potentiality of bonds of transnational identities has not been adequately lapped.

The emotional outburst that is exhibited when, say, Punjabis, Sindhis and Urdu speaking people from India and Pakistan meet one another often exceeds emotional ties of national and religious bonds.

The emotional upsurge among that was recently witnessed during the recent conference of Punjabis of the two countries at Lahore learns that out.

Wherever I have met Punjabis from Pakistan, any where outside India, for instance, they invariably make a demand that Punjabi literature being produced in India should be transliterated into Persian script so that they could also read it.

Is it beyond the resources of India to meet this simple demand? Likewise why can't autonomous institutions be created' to award prizes for the best literary piece in Punjabi, Sindhi, Urdu as also Bangla, Tamil and Nepales whether that is written in India, neighbouring countries or by their diaspora abroad? We have also found that cultural, technical and professional meats generate similar goodwill among countries of the region.

This, however, is not to suggest that Jammu and Kashmir can be permanently kept at the back burner.

While an improvement in overall relationship can certainly cut the problem to size, vice versa, too, is correct.

If New Delhi could have an adequate understanding of the realities, diversities and complexities of the state and evolve its policies accordingly, the state is ideally suited as an instrument of promoting a harmonious Indo-Pak relations.

This does acquire more than diplomatic and poetic skill of Vajpayee.

About us | Advertise | Other Publications | Subscriptions | Weather | Letters | Send Mail Disclaimer: Information is being made available at this site purely as a measure of public facilitation.

While every effort has been made to ensure that the information hosted on this website is accurate CHAIRMAN: VED BHASIN Kashmir Times Group of Publications Edited, printed and published by Prabodh Jamwal Editor-in-Chief, The Kashmir Times, Residency Road, Jammu, J&K, INDIA.

Executive Editor: Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal E-Mail: vbhasin@sancharnet.in, jmt_prabodh@sancharnet.in