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

US govt funding 'dubious PR firm' to discredit anti-GM, anti-pesticide activists

By Our Representative  The Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) has vocally condemned the financial support provided by the US Government to questionable public relations firms aimed at undermining the efforts of activists opposed to pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in India. 

Modi govt distancing from Adanis? MoEFCC 'defers' 1500 MW project in Western Ghats

By Rajiv Shah  Is the Narendra Modi government, in its third but  what would appear to be a weaker avatar, seeking to show that it would keep a distance, albeit temporarily, from its most favorite business house, the Adanis? It would seem so if the latest move of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) latest to "defer" the Adani Energy’s application for 1500 MW Warasgaon-Warangi Pump Storage Project is any indication.

Bayer's business model: 'Monopoly control over chemicals, seeds'

By Bharat Dogra*  The Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has rendered a great public service by very recently publishing a report titled ‘Bayer’s Toxic Trails’ which reveals how the German agrochemical giant Bayer has been lobbying hard to promote glyphosate and GMOs, or trying to “capture public policy to pursue its private interests.” This report, written by Joao Camargo and Hans Van Scharen, follows Bayer’s toxic trail as “it maintains monopolistic control of the seed and pesticides markets, fights off regulatory challenges to its toxic products, tries to limit legal liability, and exercises political influence.” 

105,000 sign protest petition, allege Nestlé’s 'double standard' over added sugar in baby food

By Kritischer Konsum*    105,000 people have signed a petition calling on Nestlé to stop adding sugar to its baby food products marketed in lower-income countries. It was handed over today at the multinational’s headquarters in Vevey, where the NGOs Public Eye, IBFAN and EKO dumped the symbolic equivalent of 10 million sugar cubes, representing the added sugar consumed each day by babies fed with Cerelac cereals. In Switzerland, such products are sold with no added sugar. The leading baby food corporation must put an end to this harmful double standard.

Militants, with ten times number of arms compared to those in J&K, 'roaming freely' in Manipur

By Sandeep Pandey*  The violence which shows no sign of abating in the ongoing Meitei-Kuki conflict in Manipur is a matter of concern. The alienation of the two communities and hatred generated for each other is unprecedented. The Meiteis cannot leave Manipur by road because the next district North on the way to Kohima in Nagaland is Kangpokpi, a Kuki dominated area where the young Kuki men and women are guarding the district borders and would not let any Meitei pass through the national highway. 

'Flawed' argument: Gandhi had minimal role, naval mutinies alone led to Independence

Counterview Desk Reacting to a Counterview  story , "Rewiring history? Bose, not Gandhi, was real Father of Nation: British PM Attlee 'cited'" (January 26, 2016), an avid reader has forwarded  reaction  in the form of a  link , which carries the article "Did Atlee say Gandhi had minimal role in Independence? #FactCheck", published in the site satyagrahis.in. The satyagraha.in article seeks to debunk the view, reported in the Counterview story, taken by retired army officer GD Bakshi in his book, “Bose: An Indian Samurai”, which claims that Gandhiji had a minimal role to play in India's freedom struggle, and that it was Netaji who played the crucial role. We reproduce the satyagraha.in article here. Text: Nowadays it is said by many MK Gandhi critics that Clement Atlee made a statement in which he said Gandhi has ‘minimal’ role in India's independence and gave credit to naval mutinies and with this statement, they concluded the whole freedom struggle.

Can voting truly resolve the Kashmir issue? Past experience suggests optimism may be misplaced

By Raqif Makhdoomi*  In the politically charged atmosphere of Jammu and Kashmir, election slogans resonated deeply: "Jail Ka Badla, Vote Sa" (Jail’s Revenge, Vote) and "Article 370 Ka Badla, Vote Sa" (Article 370’s Revenge, Vote). These catchphrases dominated the assembly election campaigns, particularly across Kashmir. 

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.

Edgar Snow's objective view of Chinese revolution 'avoided' uncritical support for Maoism

By Harsh Thakor*  As we commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Chinese Revolution, it is essential to reflect on the legacy of Edgar Snow, the first journalist to enter the northwest region known as Red China in 1936. His groundbreaking work brought the narratives of Mao Zedong and his followers to the global stage. A prominent figure in China, Snow was an American journalist celebrated for his 1937 book , "Red Star Over China."