Skip to main content

Whither nuclear disarmament? India, Pak 'hurting' each other for decades

By Vikas Kumar*

In an interview to three of us**, prominent Pakistani physicist and noted peace activist Dr Abdul Hameed Nayyar talks of the dynamics of nuclear disarmament between India and Pakistan. Dr Nayyar taught nuclear physics at Quaid-E-Azam University, Islamabad, for 30 years and was a visiting scholar at at the Princeton University. He is well known for voicing for education reforms and military arms control.
Q) Can you tell us about your work on nuclear disarmament and MND : Movement for Nuclear Disarmament in Pakistan?
We were a group of university professors who in 1985 started educating people about horrors of nuclear weapons. We started around 1985, much before Pakistan’s nuclear programme became any serious. We reached out to prominent people in media and civil society and received a very good response from all of them. We wrote many papers on disarmament which were published. Some of us were invited by the Pakistan Military to discuss strategic matters.
Many colleagues from India also supported our movement on Pakistan India Forum for Peace and Democracy, which started in 1994. We were joined by many powerful activists and journalists like Prafful Kidwai and Sandeep Pandey.
Just as there were reports that India and Pakistan were beginning to make progress on disarmament, there were a few crises. Most prominent was in 1987: Operation Brass Tacks conducted by Indian Military in the Thar desert. The exercise led by Gen Sundarji was massive and Pakistan got scared. Gen Sundarji had talked about this doctrine where Indian forces will do a blitzkrieg and completely cripple Pakistan by dividing it in two parts. Pakistan got very paranoid and there were reports that Pakistan started mobilizing whatever nuclear weapons they had.
Reports had already come out that Pakistan had done cold tests of nuclear weapons in 1985 and they were ready. Americans had alerted Indians about the possibility of nuclear escalation in case of conventional war. The situation was ultimately diffused by American Diplomats. But this was the time when we started educating people about the grave danger in which we were living in. There were frequent missile tests and escalations between India and Pakistan.
Then came the 1998 nuclear explosions. We had been warning people that it would happen. Nuclear establishments want to be rewarded for their work and acknowledged as national heroes. So they have a very strong stake in getting tests done and are always pushing the political establishment. We had predicted that both the countries would conduct the tests, India exploded on May 11 and 13 and Pakistan exploded bombs a fortnight later on May 28.
Q) What was the domestic reaction to your movement after both the countries tested their nukes in 1998?

Once India had exploded bombs, we wrote here that Pakistan should not join the nuclear race and should avoid the temptation to test. There was severe backlash against us. No one listened to us and we were treated as complete outcasts. Once Pakistan tested bombs, we wrote that what has been done was not good and India and Pakistan should sit together and aim for nuclear disarmament. There was so much euphoria in the country that no one was willing to listen to us. In one of the press conferences, the press beat us up and attacked us. This was the reaction. There were continuous attacks against us and efforts to silence us. But gradually, the attacks petered out, probably they realized that no one was listening to us.
Our work continued through other forums, first there was Pakistan India Forum for Peace and Democracy and then Citizens Peace Committee, Asian Peace Alliance, all aimed towards denuclearization.
Q) What are your views on the theory of Nuclear Deterrence? There is viewpoint that Nuclearization can in fact insure peace between the countries?
Theory of Deterrence has been debated in great detail by people and game theory experts. One argument is also that if you have nuclear weapons in your hand, you become more adventurous and try to test the red lines of your opponent. The Kargil War is a good example, Pakistani Army had always been looking for some sort of advantage in Kargil and Siachen. The idea was to have a limited conflict which did not give an excuse for nuclear retaliation.
If deterrence is to work, both the countries have to be absolutely convinced of mutually assured destruction. I remember an incident, when IK Gujral was the Prime Minister of India, he was talking to a Pakistani Diplomat (my friend). Gujral told him in no uncertain terms that he believed Pakistan’s nuclear program was a hoax and Indians do not believe it exists and are not worried about it. Soon after India exploded nukes, Indian politicians for example Advani and Fernandes started challenging Pakistan in a very hostile way.
They made statements that Pakistan had no option but to accept India’s superiority and the whole equation had changed. So, when you have these weapons you have extra confidence in yourself and you tend to act in an aggressive manner. If such hostile challenges were not made, Pakistan may not have tested nukes. There was a strong argument against testing: that UN sanctions would absolutely cripple Pakistan's economy. But Pakistan was forced to explode just to keep Indians at bay.
So this is the danger with nuclear weapons, countries which are not mature enough like India and Pakistan engage in childish behaviour and that poses a grave danger. Deterrence worked between USA and USSR because both the countries were mature enough to realize that each one of them possessed ICBMs and nukes capable of destroying each other many times over.
Q) How did the equation between India & Pakistan change after the Kargil War? How did it impact Multiple Nuclear Dot (MND)?
They badly soured the relations between the two countries. Before Kargil, Vajpayee had visited Pakistan and said that he was hopeful that India and Pakistan would sort out their issues and there would be easing of relations. Then Kargil happened, 9/11 happened, Pakistan got involved in the war in Afghanistan and the attack on Indian Parliament happened. There was a huge inflow of Afghan refugees into Pakistan. These things took attention away from our activism. Our activism certainly became zero around that time. We still continue to write about disarmament.
Q) Can you tell us about No War Pact between India and Pakistan that you were alluding to? Do you think it is relevant today?

This is something me and Sandeep Pandey have worked together on. We proposed this around the time of the Agra Summit in 2002. The Agra summit failed. Our proposal stressed on the things that India and Pakistan could agree on. We thought it would reduce suspicions and tensions between the two countries. I think even in the present, it makes a lot of sense for both the countries to sign such a pact. It can reduce the rising militarism in both the countries. It can reduce the suspicions prevalent in both countries.
Both India and Pakistan have been hurting each other for decades whenever they can see a weakness. India did it in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), Pakistan did it in Punjab. And both of them continue to throw this ball of no war pact to each other whenever it suits them.
What we need is, to broadly define acts of war. It should not be just limited to full fledged war between the armies. It should include things like use of non state actors for terrorism, blocking of river waters etc. Then we can have arbitrators for example South Asian countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan to decide if there has been a violation of the No War Pact. Personally I see a lot of reasons to push for it now.
---
*Management Student at the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad
**Vikas Kumar, Shreshth Virmani, Raghav Gupta

Comments

TRENDING

'Enough evidence' in Indian tradition to support legal basis for same-sex marriage

By Iyce Malhotra, Joseph Mathai, Sandeep Chachra*  The ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage provides space for much-needed conversations on issues that have hitherto remained “invisible” or engaged with patriarchal locker room humour. We must recognize that people with diverse sexualities and complex gender identities have faced discrimination, stigma and decades of oppression. Their issues have mainly remained buried in dominant social discourse, and many view them with deep insecurities.

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Victim of communal violence, Christians in Manipur want Church leadership to speak up

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*  The first eleven days of May 2023 have, in many ways, been a defining period of Indian history! Plenty has happened in a rapid-fire stream of events. Ironically, each one of them are indicators of how crimes and the criminalisation of society has become the ‘new norm’; these include, the May Day rallies with a focus on the four labour codes which are patently against the rights of workers; the U S Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its Annual Report on 1 May stating that conditions for religious freedom in India “continued to worsen in 2022”; the continued protest by the Indian women wrestlers at Jantar Mantar for the expulsion of the chief of the Indian Wrestlers Federation on very serious allegations; the Elections in Karnataka on 10 May (with communalism and corruption as the mainstay); the release of the fake, derogative and insensitive film ‘The Kerala Story’; the release of World Free Press Index on 3 May which places India

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Unlike other revolutionaries, Hindutva icon wrote 5 mercy petitions to British masters

By Shamsul Islam*  The Hindutva icon VD Savarkar of the RSS-BJP rulers of India submitted not one, two,or three but five mercy petitions to the British masters! Savarkarites argue: “There are no evidences to prove that Savarkar collaborated with the British for his release from jail. In fact, his appeal for release was a ruse. He was well aware of the political developments outside and wanted to be part of it. So he kept requesting for his release. But the British authorities did not trust him a bit” (YD Phadke, ‘A complex Hero’, "The Indian Expres"s, August 31, 2004)

Polygamy in India "down" in 45 yrs: Muslims' from 5.7 to 2.55%, Hindus' 5.8 to 1.77%, "common" in SCs, STs

By Rajiv Shah Amidst All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) justifying polygamy, saying it “meets social and moral needs and the provision for it stems from concern and sympathy for women”, facts suggest the the practice is down from 5.7 per cent of Muslim families in 1961 to 2.55 per cent in 2006.

India joining US sponsored trade pillar to hurt Indian farmers, 'promote' GM seeds, food

Counterview Desk  As many as 32 civil society organisations (CSOs), in a letter to Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and India joining the trade pillar, have said that its provisions will allow the US to ensure a more favourable regulatory regime “for enhancing its exports of genetically modified (GM) seeds and GM food”, underlining, it will “significantly hurt the livelihoods of Indian farmers.”

Savarkar 'criminally betrayed' Netaji and his INA by siding with the British rulers

By Shamsul Islam* RSS-BJP rulers of India have been trying to show off as great fans of Netaji. But Indians must know what role ideological parents of today's RSS/BJP played against Netaji and Indian National Army (INA). The Hindu Mahasabha and RSS which always had prominent lawyers on their rolls made no attempt to defend the INA accused at Red Fort trials.

Modi govt 'wholly untrustworthy' on Covid data, censored criticism on pandemic: Lancet

By Rajiv Shah*   One of the world’s most prestigious health journals, brought out from England, has sharply criticised the Narendra Modi government for being “wholly untrustworthy on Covid-19 health data”, stating, the “official government figures place deaths at more than 530 000, while WHO excess death estimates for 2020 and 2021 are near 4·7 million.”

Savarkar 'opposed' Bhagat Singh's, Netaji's dream of India, supported British war efforts

By Shamsul Islam* In a shocking development, the student wing of the RSS put the busts of martyrs Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose with Savarkar's on one pedestal at the University of Delhi late in the night on August 20, 2019. Bhagat Singh sacrificed his life for a socialist-democratic-secular republic and Netaji raised Azad Hind Fauj (INA) consisting of people of all religions and regions for armed liberation of India.