The most dangerous place on earth, India

The most dangerous place on earth, India
Mohammad Jamil
During early 1950s, eminent philosopher Bertrand Russel in an essay titled “The future of mankind” had written that before the end of the century, unless something quite unforeseeable occurred, one of three possibilities would have realized. The first one was the end of human life or all life on the planet as a result of war, and then as a consequence hunger, starvation and disease. The second was reversion to barbarism in view of the first one, and third one was unification of the world under a single government, possessing a monopoly of all the major weapons of war”. But since then India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea have tested nuclear devices, and are nuclear powers with credible delivery systems; hence monopoly of major weapons of war for any country is impossible. The philosopher had however hoped that when America will emerge ‘victorious’, it would play its role to resolve the conflicts between belligerent nations.
There is no denying that today Kashmir, Palestine and Taiwan are three flashpoints. China has steadily gained the position that like Hong Kong one day Taiwan would also fall in the lap of China. Nevertheless, India and Pakistan - nuclear states – could collide one day if Kashmir issue is not resolved. And this makes South Asia as the most dangerous place on earth. Already in 1993 five years before India and Pakistan came out of nuclear closet in May 1999, Central Intelligence Agency Director had said: “The arms race between India and Pakistan poses perhaps the more probable prospect for future use of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons”. Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch author of ‘The Clinton tapes: Wrestling with the president’ claimed in his book that during Kargil conflict in 1999 Indian leaders had portrayed a doomsday scenario to the then president Bill Clinton that in the event of an Indo-Pak nuclear war India will emerge as the ultimate winner after wiping off Pakistan but could lose up to 500 million of its people.

The author claims that Clinton told him that “New Delhi would nuke Pakistan annihilating the entire country, if anyone in Islamabad triggered the nuclear bombs against it”. He quoted Bill Clinton having disclosed in private that Indian officials spoke of knowing roughly how many nuclear bombs the Pakistanis possessed, from which they calculated that a doomsday nuclear volley would kill 300 to 500 million Indians while wiping out all 120 million Pakistanis. But on the other side, the Pakistanis insisted that their rugged mountain terrain would shield more survivors than the exposed plains of India. Indian leadership had tried to convey message of threat through the then US president Bill Clinton, but Pakistan being a nuclear state was not cowed down by India’s jingoism and threats. Though Pakistan has kept the option of ‘first use’ of nukes open, yet it has never hurled threats that it would use them. However, efforts are made to create doubts about the safety of Pakistan’s nukes, but Pakistan has a foolproof command and control system.

Pakistan has also proved many a time that it is a responsible state. Signing of treaty to reduce the risk of a nuclear arms accident with India is a case in point. In fact, the nuclear tests in May 1998 by India and Pakistan had forced both the countries to think hard about nuclear deployment, and to talk to each other about ways to reduce the risk of war as well as accidents. However, there is a trust deficit because India’s stance on every issue is reflective of its patent intransigence. It appears that Indian leadership is not coming out of the big-power syndrome and feels that India does not need any help from Pakistan in any field, though it is craving to have transit facility to trade with Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics. Indian leadership seems to suffer from megalomania to do big things and become a dominant power in the region, which is next to impossible in the presence of China.

Anyhow, India’s arrogance and attitude have stymied the progress in enhancing trade between the SAARC countries, as almost all member-countries are wary of India’s ambition of extending hegemony over its neighbours. The fact remains that having a sound industrial base India stands to gain more from the cordial relations with the SAARC countries. Therefore it is in India’s interest to showcase decency and give practical demonstration of dealing neighbouring countries on equal basis. However, the US and the west are to blame because they continue eulogizing India being the largest democracy while turning a blind eye to India’s maltreatment with its minorities and machinations against its neighbouring countries. The US and western countries have an egregious record of displaying double standards on many an occasion - one for their strategic partners and the other one for those who refuse to fall in line with them to promote their interests.

India and Pakistan are outside the global Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have tested nuclear arms but after the US-India deal for so-called civil nuclear technology the 45-nation nuclear export cartel approved a waiver to its rules allowing trade with India. It was obvious from the Indo-US agreement that India can increase from its current production capacity of six to 10 additional nuclear bombs a year to several dozen per year. It goes without saying that India already has enough material for some 60 to 100 nuclear bombs. In this backdrop, Pakistan is likely to match India’s capability in the name of minimum deterrence, while China may also reconsider its fissile production halt for weapons. There is a perception that by concluding a nuclear deal with India, the previous US administration allowed business and political interests to trump up the national security interests of the United States.

Besides, creating asymmetry in South Asia, the US-India nuclear trade legislation had granted India the benefits of being a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty without requiring it to meet all of the responsibilities expected of responsible states. India had remained outside the international nuclear mainstream since it misused Canadian and US nuclear assistance to conduct its 1974 nuclear bomb test; refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and conducted additional nuclear tests in 1998. India had been cut off from most US civilian nuclear assistance since 1978 and international assistance since 1992 because of these violations. It was felt that India’s willingness to open some nuclear reactors for international inspection in return for the deal was not enough, as the agreement allowed it to keep its extensive and secret nuclear weapons and materials production complex off-limits. By adopting the nuclear bill, Congress had disregarded the provisions that would have required commitments from India to restrain its production of nuclear weapons and nuclear bomb material.

On the other hand, the US had refused to ink similar deal with Pakistan - an old strategic ally that was intertwined with the US and the West in various pacts. Anyhow, the way the US has treated a friend that stood by its allies for about half-a-century, is deplorable. In this backdrop, it is imperative that Pakistan should undertake a major review of its foreign policy, and reassess our national interest in the changed post-cold war scenario, as the US continues with its policy that has led to asymmetry in the subcontinent by providing India with latest technology and equipment. And this policy is bound to make the Kashmir issue more complicated. In fact, die of strategic partnership with India was cast during Bill Clinton era, when paradigm shift in American policy started. During his visit to India at the fag end of his presidency, Bill Clinton had given hope to Indian leadership that the US would help India in making it a global power.