Skip to main content

Can India, Pakistan seek Gandhian solution, declare South Asia N-weapons free zone?

By Shivendra Pandey* 

In a world defined by competition over cooperation, and the acquisition of arms prioritised over the pursuit of diplomacy, the threat of a nuclear weapon being used is higher than it has been in generations. Promising national security, the modern state has come to regard nuclear weapons as an irresistible force for peace strategic stability and a more tranquil future.
They are regarded as the most powerful and destructive weapons held in the arsenals of modern state capable of inflicting a remarkable degree of overkill. It is in this context that various forms of less militant response, including the methods of conflict resolution adopted by India's nationalist leader, Mohandas Gandhi, deserves a second look.
While Gandhi did not directly address the issue of nuclear weapons, his philosophy of non-violence is cited as a model for achieving disarmament and peaceful conflict resolution. He believed that violence only begets more violence, and that the only way to break the cycle of aggression was to refuse to engage in it.
During the 1970s and 1980s, Argentina and Brazil, which happen to be neighbours, engaged in a nuclear arms race, as both countries sought to establish themselves as regional powers in Latin America. The development of nuclear weapons was seen as a way to demonstrate military superiority and deter potential threats.
With a long-standing diplomatic rivalry, they were now bent upon developing sensitive nuclear technology, including enriching and reprocessing uranium, and building ballistic missiles. Making matters worse, military regimes governed both countries at the time, and this work took place with no civilian scrutiny. National security doctrines in both countries identified each other as a major potential security threat, with the armed forces having contingency plans in place in the event of war.
Then things took a different turn altogether, starting in the 1980s, the two countries set out on an ambitious path of nuclear cooperation. In the process, they imposed new restraints on their nuclear programs and rewrote national security doctrines to eliminate the possibility of war. To everyone’s surprise, they also built a mechanism of mutual nuclear inspections that was unprecedented anywhere.
In 1994, Argentina and Brazil joined the Tlatelolco Treaty that established Latin America and the Caribbean as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. Shortly thereafter, they both joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, definitively establishing themselves as non-nuclear actors -- and, above all, peaceful neighbours. But how did this happen?
  1. In November 1983, under the military government rule, when the Argentine government announced its mastery of the technology to enrich uranium, it caught Brazilian authorities by surprise, and they doubled down on their effort to develop their uranium-enrichment capacity.
  2. A month after, civilian rule returned to Argentina and the new president understood the risk of Brazil and Argentina becoming ensnared in a nuclear arms race and when civilian rule also returned to Brazil in 1985, the two democratically elected leaders began working quickly to build trust. Additional gestures of trust were made by the Argentine leader by inviting the Brazilian President to the Argentine nuclear facility.
  3. The spirit of reciprocity required the same courtesy to be extended vice-versa, which was indeed done when the Argentine president visited Brazilian nuclear facility in 1986. Working on this Gandhian principle of negotiation and persuasion, Argentine and Brazilian officials were able to establish a high degree of empathy and trust at the highest levels. They could have led to a serious deterioration in the relationship, but ended up leading to greater nuclear cooperation instead.
In a recent interview, Jose Sarney, the then president of Brazil took pride in how the relationship he achieved with Alfonsin -- the then president of Argentina -- helped avert a bigger crisis and establish a trusting relationship.
If Brazil and Argentina can establish themselves as non-nuclear actors, why can't India and Pakistan?
The India-Pakistan conflict is a long-standing issue with deep-rooted historical, political, and cultural differences. While there is no easy solution to this complex issue, a Gandhian approach can provide some insights into how the conflict can be resolved Gandhi believed in the power of dialogue and negotiation to resolve conflicts.
India and Pakistan need to engage in sustained and sincere dialogue to resolve their differences. This dialogue should involve not just political leaders, but also civil society groups, academics, and other stakeholders. The pertinent question is when Brazil and Argentina can do it, why can India and Pakistan not do it?
The earlier the two countries realize the futility of being engaged in a nuclear arms race, the better it would be for the common citizens of both countries as well as entire South Asia. In fact, India and Pakistan should take the initiative to create a South Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone just as one was created in Latin America and Caribbean.
Another Gandhian principle is the power of non-violent resistance (ahimsa) as a means to bring about change. Both India and Pakistan should avoid any kind of violence or aggression towards each other and focus on peaceful means to resolve their issues.
Gandhi emphasized the importance of empathy and understanding towards those with whom we have a conflict. India and Pakistan need to understand each other's perspectives and concerns, and show empathy towards each other's struggles.
India and Pakistan need to take steps to build mutual trust, such as cultural exchanges, people-to-people contacts, and economic cooperation.
The conflicts can be resolved when both sides identify their common goals and work together towards that. India and Pakistan should identify common goals, such as regional stability, economic development, and peace, and work towards achieving them together.
This application could be seen in the Panchsheel, or the five principles of peaceful co-existence, first formally enunciated in the agreement on trade and intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India on April 29, 1954 -- which consists of mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and co-operation for mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence, which is considered to be an example of the Gandhian principles in international relations.
---
*3rd year BA-LLB student at NALSAR, Hyderabad

Comments

TRENDING

Was Netaji forced to alter face, die in obscurity in USSR in 1975? Was he so meek?

  By Rajiv Shah   This should sound almost hilarious. Not only did Subhas Chandra Bose not die in a plane crash in Taipei, nor was he the mysterious Gumnami Baba who reportedly passed away on 16 September 1985 in Ayodhya, but we are now told that he actually died in 1975—date unknown—“in oblivion” somewhere in the former Soviet Union. Which city? Moscow? No one seems to know.

Love letters in a lifelong war: Babusha Kohli’s resistance in verse

By Ravi Ranjan*  “War does not determine who is right—only who is left.” Bertrand Russell’s words echo hauntingly in our times, and few contemporary Hindi poets embody this truth as profoundly as Babusha Kohli. Emerging from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, Kohli has carved a unique space in literature by weaving together tenderness, protest, and philosophy across poetry, prose, and cinema. Her work is not merely artistic expression—it is resistance, refuge, and a call for peace.

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.

Asbestos contamination in children’s products highlights global oversight gaps

By A Representative   A commentary published by the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat (IBAS) has drawn attention to the challenges governments face in responding effectively to global public-health risks. In an article written by Laurie Kazan-Allen and published on March 5, 2026, the author examines how the discovery of asbestos contamination in children’s play products has raised questions about regulatory oversight and international product safety. The article opens by reflecting on lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that governments in several countries were slow to respond to early warning signs of the crisis. Referring to the experience of the United Kingdom, the author writes that delays in implementing protective measures contributed to “232,112 recorded deaths and over a million people suffering from long Covid.” The commentary uses this example to illustrate what it describes as the dangers of underestimating emerging threats. Attention then turns...

Echoes of Vietnam and Chile: The devastating cost of the I-A Axis in Iran

​ By Ram Puniyani  ​The recent joint military actions by Israel and the United States against Iran have been devastating. Like all wars, this conflict is brutal to its core, leaving a trail of human suffering in its wake. The stated pretext for this aggression—the brutality of the Ayatollah Khamenei regime and its nuclear ambitions—clashes sharply with the reality of the diplomatic landscape. Iran had expressed a willingness to remain at the negotiating table, signaling a readiness to concede points emerging from dialogue. 

Authoritarian destruction of the public sphere in Ecuador: Trumpism in action?

By Pilar Troya Fernández  The situation in Ecuador under Daniel Noboa's government is one of authoritarianism advancing on several fronts simultaneously to consolidate neoliberalism and total submission to the US international agenda. These are not isolated measures, but rather a coordinated strategy that combines job insecurity, the dismantling of the welfare state, unrestricted access to mining, the continuation of oil exploitation without environmental considerations, the centralization of power through the financial suffocation of local governments, and the systematic criminalization of all forms of opposition and popular organization.

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

Nalanda mahavihara By Rajiv Shah  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".

The kitchen as prison: A feminist elegy for domestic slavery

By Garima Srivastava* Kumar Ambuj stands as one of the most incisive voices in contemporary Hindi poetry. His work, stripped of ornamentation, speaks directly to the lived realities of India’s marginalized—women, the rural poor, and those crushed under invisible forms of violence. His celebrated poem “Women Who Cook” (Khānā Banātī Striyāṃ) is not merely about food preparation; it is a searing indictment of patriarchal domestic structures that reduce women’s existence to endless, unpaid labour.

The price of silence: Why Modi won’t follow Shastri, appeal for sacrifice

By Arundhati Dhuru, Sandeep Pandey*  ​In 1965, as India grappled with war and a crippling food crisis, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri faced a United States that used wheat shipments under the PL-480 agreement as a lever to dictate Indian foreign policy. Shastri’s response remains legendary: he appealed to the nation to skip one meal a day. Millions of middle-class households complied, choosing temporary hunger over the sacrifice of national dignity. Today, India faces a modern equivalent in the energy sector, yet the leadership’s response stands in stark contrast to that era of self-reliance.