[Title
| Contents
| Acknowledgements
| Chapter 1
| Chapter 2
| Chapter 3
| Chapter 4
| Chapter 5
| Chapter 6
| Chapter 7
| Chapter 8
| Chapter 9
| Chapter 10
| Chapter 11
| Chapter 12
| Chapter 13
| Chapter 14
| Conclusion
Chapter 12
Our Defence must be based on
Strong Nuclear
Might
(being co-authored with Murthy
Durvasula)
Go for actual statistics. Get the table 1389 of the US Statistical
Abstract, 1997, from p.860 of the abstract. This gives the following
figures:
(in Constant 1995 dollars)
1985 1990 1995
USA 354 352 278
Russia 76
China 53 56 64
Japan 37.5 46.8 50.2
S.Korea 8.9 12.4 14.4
N.Korea 7.2 6.8 6.0
India 6.8 7.6 7.8
Pakistan 2.5 3.6 3.7
Bangladesh .33 .36 .5
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh spend less than South Korea does, on
defence.
Poverty does not make for the best defence. Today, the USA, Russia and
Japan top the list of spenders on defence, spending (in 1995) about $315
billion, $53 billion, and $46 billion respectively. We always cry out
about the spending by China on its defence, but that spending is worth
only $16 billion. Our spending is much less than China's. The USA has been
spending at such relatively high rates compared to the rest of the world
since so many years that there is no doubt in my mind that it can crush
ANY nation in a one-to-one combat. The rich become powerful and the poor
become defence-less and lose respect. That is the lesson to be learnt from
this simple fact.
Congressional
Research Service Documents on India
An article on the Kashmir problem by K
SUBRAHMANYAM (I don't quite agree with the article, but it is
worth considering).
* Killing two birds with one stone
Continuing again on the perhaps impractical and wishful path charted
out in the above chapter, one would like to visualize what would happen to
our defence if India and Pakistan were to unite.
a) Shift in global power: Immediately, one can see a complete
shift in global power. There will then be four poles of power in the
world: India, China, Europe and the USA, instead of three as at the
moment. The weakest "pole" will definitely be
this United India (or call it anything you like), but I see this weakness
only for a little while. If a two pronged strategy is followed, namely, of
the carrot and stick, then this nation can become at least as strong as
China within a couple of decades.
The two prongs of this strategy will have to be the carrot (economic) and
stick (defence).
On the one hand, the lessons of economics can be followed to the extent
possible, leading to increasing participation of this nation in global
trade, and increasing prosperity based on human capital development. The
private firms in the West will have
a far greater incentive to invest in this United India, and we should see
the pouring in of billions of dollars of FDI. The comparative advantage in
labor will have to be exploited (however, there is no advantage in
unskilled labor; only an advantage if the labor is skilled). On the other
hand, the nation will have to go openly nuclear, in order to set up a
stick against anybody else who might ever threaten it. The reasons for the
stick policy are discussed separately below.
As a consequence of these two strategies, United India will have the
power to immediately command a seat in the United Nations security
council, and to start providing a check to the dominance of the West.
Pluralism and competition is vital at every level of governance; and it
would be better for mankind to possess more poles of power than less.
Checks and balances are always the best strategy to control unbridled
power. While the USA and the West in general have a fairly tight system of
checks and balances in place (due to democracy), it would do the global
system good to admit South Asia to the competition for power.
b) Peace dividend: A second consequence, of repeated fighting,
or the threat of fight, between India and Pakistan, would be eliminated.
The current tendency of both these nations toward break-up into smaller
nations [cf. the various internal struggles going on in these nations]
would be countered through this unifying force. The peace dividend would
be enormous. By simply switching to a nuclear defence mode and minimizing
the conventional defence expenditure, as well as by increasing trade with
in this greater nation, there would be a spurt in economic growth of an
unprecedented proportion.
Therefore, the unification would at the same time reduce the need for
defence while increasing economic growth, and thus lead to a greater role
in world politics, which is a good thing in itself, since this nation
would represent about a fifth of the world's population.
* Necessity of a strong and credible nuclear option
While I am no proponent of nuclear weapons anywhere, I find positions
of the nature as reflected in the news item included below, to be
extremely painful. I would like to see, ultimately, the emergence of a
single world government comprised of benevolent representatives from all
over the world, but in real life, it is clear that strategic interactions
are the way of the world. It will be futile to expect the powerful -
anywhere - to give up their power. In the case of economic inequality
there is at least some semblance of discussion about foreign aid (which
amounts to less than 1 per cent of the GDP of the wealthy nations). In the
case of nuclear weapons, the position is amazingly stupid and belligerent:
i.e., the powerful are telling the rest of
the world: "We are entitled to keep our nuclear weapons while you - who
did not care to threaten us earlier and are now weak - are not."
Now, any basic game theorist will tell you that, given the fact that
all powerful nations behave strategically - it was irrational on the part
of India not to behave like China and build hundreds of nuclear weapons
which could then be used to negotiate concessions from the rest of the
world, such as persuading the whole world to abandon their nuclear
stockpiles (a difficult job, however, given that all nations would have a
tendency to cheat).
But even now, India would be better off by producing huge amounts of
nuclear weapons than by not having any weapon. That is because it is not
quite clear that the USA will always remain neutral with respect to India.
It might well happen that USA becomes an enemy (as it will, if it
continues its current belligerence as expressed in the news item: USA
might be perhaps the greatest nation the world has ever seen, but that
does not mean it is benevolent). In that situation, India will lose the
war with USA unless it is strong enough to contest with it on all fronts,
including nuclear. It is difficult to imagine a one-to-one situation with
the USA, however. It is more likely that its allied forces will join
together. Thus it is going to be extremely impractical to ever fight the
USA. But India must go ahead, nevertheless, knowing that it is futile at
this stage to try to ask the nuclear states to abandon their nuclear
plans; and that the only way available to it is to produce thousands of
its own, and then, once fully armed, negotiate that all the states abandon
their weapons; if at that stage, they do not, at least we will have much
less fear from defeat in a war with such nations, in case one of these
decides to attack us some day, on whatever "noble" pretext (since when
have the powerful started becoming noble or charitable - look at the
increasing disparity within the USA itself).
In fact, in the very long term perspective, it is almost inevitable
that the USA will be replaced as the dominant power by some other nation.
No nation has continued to prosper forever. The time of China and India
will come, sooner than most people in
the developed world think. In such a situation, it would be extremely
difficult to convert economic power into political power if more than half
the nuclear weapons in the world are with the USA. The risk of the use of
these weapons also will increase as
the relative economic power of the USA declines in comparison to the
'developing nations.' The only way is to plan ahead and to ensure that
India retains the technological skills to produce even stronger (cleverer)
weapons to counteract these weapons of the USA.
India News Network Digest Sat, 15 Feb 97 Volume 2 : Issue 1417 #1
US arms envoy attacks India and Pakistan
By Stephanie
Nebehay
GENEVA, Feb 14 (Reuter) - The United States disarmament ambassador
accused India and Pakistan on Friday of holding up global arms control
negotiations while freely producing plutonium and highly-enriched uranium
used in nuclear bombs. Stephen Ledogar, in an interview, reiterated that
major powers could not accept demands by non-aligned states, led by India
and Pakistan, to set a timetable for total disarmament. But he expressed
hope that the Conference on Disarmament nevertheless would agree to
relaunch stalled negotiations to ban production of bomb-making fissile
material and also sponsor negotiations on a global ban on landmines.
"The United States doesn't have formal priority as between fissile
cut-off and anti-personnel landmines. We would rather do both," Ledogar
told Reuters.
"But I would say either one of them would be better than none," he
added.
After a month of haggling, the U.N.-backed talks adopted a 1997
negotiating agenda on Friday, but major differences remain despite the
procedural breakthrough, according to diplomats.
Joun Yung Sun, South Korea's ambassador and president, told a news
briefing that under the new broad agenda the 61 member states could agree
to launch negotiations to ban landmines. The lethal weapons are blamed for
killing 25,000 people a year.
But consensus would be necessary, and Joun conceded that the landmines
issue remained divisive.
Western envoys fear the landmine and fissile "cut-off" talks would be
hostage to non-aligned demands for the declared nuclear weapon states
(Britain, China, France, Russia and the
United States) to agree to a timetable for eliminating nuclear
weapons.
Only then would India and Pakistan -- two of three states widely
believed to have nuclear capability -- be prepared to enter into fissile
and landmines negotiations, they add.
But the major powers want
nuclear disarmament to be negotiated bilaterally, first between the United
States and Russia, then widened to include Britain, China and France,
according to Ledogar and other diplomats.
"The real problem is that all of this is just an excuse. There are
certain countries that do not want anything to do with fissile cut-off,"
Ledogar said. "But they do not want to stand up and say it if they can get
away with it."
Referring to demands by India and Pakistan for total disarmament, he
said: "Yet they are refusing to agree to a negotiation that would put a
cap on the nuclear arms race in South Asia and that is the only place in
the world there is a nuclear arms race right now.
"They are producing, both of them, fissile material -- unconstrained,
unsafeguarded and unaccounted for. They refuse to engage in anything that
would approach establishment of an accountability regime and yet they
lecture us in high moral terms about our shortcomings."
The U.S. envoy concluded: "The idea is we are supposed to throw away
our nuclear weapons while they build theirs."
Ledogar suggested that India and Pakistan sign the 1970 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
adding: "Then they would have the moral stature to be lecturing the rest
of the world on nuclear disarmament."
The Geneva forum had been paralysed since opening a two-month session
on January 21.
Joun said: "Some states strongly insisted on having landmines on the
agenda but other delegations did not want to see any place given on an
official document to landmines."
More than 100 million landmines lie
buried in countries around the world and are blamed for killing or maiming
25,000 people a year. Most are civilians and many are children.
v
Some more reading material on this subject:
The Journal of the Federation of American Scientists, Vol.
47, A Public Interest Report on Arms Control in South Asia
JOINT INDO-US SEMINAR ON NON-PROLIFERATION AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER (Table of Contents)
Center for
International Trade and Security
Louisiana State University: Political Page
The Brookings
Institution
Center for
Strategic and International Studies
India's Security Environment: Towards the Year
2000
The next piece is a write up by Murthy Durvasula, who is more an analyst
of today's reality. There is much of interest in what he has to say.
Pakistan Military''s role in society
By
Murthy Durvasula
The military in Pakistan has had an important role in society to
put it mildly. It dominates every facet of life in Pakistan. Since
Independence from British rule, it has seized and retained power for 45 of
the fifty years. By any stretch that is
a long time. In 1997 the creation of National Security Council, by the
interim government has institutionalized the power of the military. In
fact Gen. Karamat's remarks enunciating foreign policy after the election
of Sharief government are reiteration of where the power is. It is
interesting to examine the various factors.
Orgins
The military owes its origins to the Pre-Independence British
Indian Army (BIA). The British subscribing to the "theory of martial
races" recruited to the Muslim regiments largely from Punjab and
North West Frontier Provinces(NWFP). While
the executive and judiciary of British India were largely Hindu, the
military had a large proportion of Muslims. This fact was noted by
politicians like Sikander Hyat and others. In fact they derived their
political strength from the large contingent recruited from modern day
Pakistan.
The Indian Army which also owes its origins to the BIA is apolitical.
However in its traditions it too had its share of political elements which
were purged after the 1857 struggle. In fact about 23 regiments were
disbanded. Also note the emergence of
INA and the RIN mutiny during and after the Second World War. A more
recent example is the mutiny of some Sikh units after the 1984 Golden
Temple incident. The lesson to learn is internal politics dictate the
political values of the military.
Role of History
However the Pak military role is more deeper and complex. It
involves itself in every aspect of life in Pakistan. It sees itself as the
guardian and protector of the Islamic nature of Pakistan society and
culture. It fears cultural assimilation by
its neighbor India which has a larger Muslim population. This would mean
of loss of its ethos and individuality. It behaves as defacto occupying
force. The origins of this behavior can be traced to pre-Mughal Islamic
states which were ruled by military governors appointed by the center. The
civil and judicial elements were subordinate to the military governor.
The Mughal conquest and subsequent Sikh and British rule did nothing to
disturb the feudal structure. In fact the entire society was fossilized
and did not develop other elements.
A comparison of the role of military in other Islamic majority
states is striking. In Algeria, Turkey and Egypt the military is secular
and leading the fight against fundamentalism. In Saudi Arabia and Gulf
countries it is neutral force supportive of the crown. In Malaysia and
Indonesia it is largely neutral. In Indonesia, except for the military
takeover by Suharto in reaction to Communist coup attempt, the military
has been a benign force. Only in Pakistan does the military involve itself
in religious matters. Intrestingly Pak military rulers from Field Marshal
Ayub Khan to Gen. Zia ul Haq retained their military rank even after
assuming Presidential office lending credence to Mao's adage "Power
grows from the barrel of the gun." Pakistan behaves as a frontier
outpost of the old Islamic empire which could be assimilated culturally by
its large neighbor. It adopts extreme positions in religious matters to
prove its proximity to orthodoxy.
Aristocracy
The years of military rule during Zia also saw the breakdown of
existing feudal structure. For generations the landed aristocracy,
"the notables" wielded enormous influence. The peasantry had to
seek their favor to get things done. But during the Zia years the peasants
found they could bypass the old regime and work directly with the
military.
The old aristocracy is remarkable in the relationships it has among
itself. It intermarries among members of its class to preserve the
linkages to the invaders of the past. It prides itself on its
exclusiveness the lineage to ancient conquerors. There is not much
interaction between the different strata. Infact along with the military
it is akin to a Persian carpet which smothers the aspirations of the
evolving Pakistan society.
The years of military rule also allowed the development of the
trading class as political venues were closed. It is this class of
economics minded people who could represent a ray of hope. This is in
addition to the traditional traders of Indian origin who migrated after
Independence. The fear of cultural assimilation and the fear that somehow
these people are not fully integrated into Pak society is the root cause
of the Mohajir problem.
The end of Cold War has lead to a need for changes in the political
makeup of Pak society. The US is not interested in supporting
dictatorships. However the military wants to retain power The creation of
the National Security Council(NSC) creates a democratic facade to the
military rule. No longer does the military have to stage coup. It can act
at the behest of the NSC.
Conclusion
In conclusion Pakistan society has to be allowed to develop in
other dimensions. It has to evolve into a democratic society which is
interested in economic development of its citizens and peaceful
cooperation with its neighbors. This can happen when the society feels its
existence is not threatened; it is confident in its cohesiveness. The
common factor among other Islamic countries is their feeling of self and
nationhood. The world community can assist this transition by encouraging
measures which
boost the civilian society and develop confidence in its existence.
Another piece by Murthy
* Some thoughts of Varsha Bhosle on Rediff On The NeT (February, 1997)
.. do you really believe that altruistic principles got the US and West
Europe the ascendancy they enjoy? In fact, though it may seem like a
persecution complex in the face of American hegemony, I squint
suspiciously at everything they advocate. For instance, I don't, even for
a minute, consider as true that the West desires 'real peace and long-term
stability' in the subcontinent or, indeed, in any Third World region. For,
just as the prosperity of the Middle East rests on a natural phenomenon
(oil), so does that of the West (human bellicosity). It isn't detergents
and burgers that make the international market ticker: It's arms, plain
and simple.
It's no secret that after the Cold War, the world arms market, already
crowded with new and eager players, crashed resoundingly. Whereas in 1988,
arms exports worldwide were $ 67.9 billion, in 1993, they plunged to $
31.9 billion. As a result, arms industry jobs fell from 16.5 million to
11.5 million, with Russia suffering the most losses. And yet, in that
time, US arms exports more than doubled.
Right. The Gulf War. Which provided neighbouring Asian countries with
the impetus for building up their defences. Thus, while US companies
totaled $10.1 billion from sales abroad in 1989, they accrued $22.3
billion in 1993. Last year, a spokesman for the congressional research
service admitted that arms spending had risen by 8% in West Asia and by
12% in South East Asia. Now tell me, why would the US possibly want peace
in this region? What do arms have to do with entente and
stability?
In February 1995, President Clinton's administration issued a policy
statement stating that the government would provide 'support for arms
exports, actively involving senior government officials in promoting sales
of particular importance t o the United States. According to an analyst
for the London-based Jane's,
top US officials pushing arms expected to sell at least $10 billion worth
of weapons by 2000. Now tell me, is there some other peacenik Democrat at
the US helm this year? And who is he going to sell arms to if not
Pakistan, India and the nations which equip terrorists? America's 'wealth
of equities' in South Asia isn't restricted to property and business: it
includes human propensity for territory-staking.
And no, I don't want Mr Wisner to advise India on the nuclear option,
either. His country is kept informed by the likes of Dr Henry Kissinger
who told the deliberating Senate committee that Russia is turning
imperialistic; Japan would soon build a n atom bomb; India could be
'expected to return to the policies of the British Raj which were, after
all, conceived by the Indian Civil Service under the viceroys'; and, China
(the world's largest dictatorship) needed US 'help to checkmate these
three countries.'
If that weren't enough, the mooters of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (France, US, UK and Russia) coolly declared in the World Court that
they do not consider themselves bound by any judgement on Article VI of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty which Article calls for cessation of the
nuclear arms race and complete nuclear disarmament with the US also
asserting its 'need' to maintain nuclear weapons for an indefinite period
well over 50 years. And all this while bullying us into signing the CTBT
under the implied threat of trade embargoes, pressure by the IMF, pariah
status etc. As they say, sau choohe maar ke,
billi Haj ko chali.
Personal Notes: I do not believe that this view of Varsha Bhosle
captures the entire truth about US, which has in fact protected the world
from the inequities of people like Hitler and has defended free speech and
noble human ideals in the face
of an onslaught of brutal political control in many parts of the world,
but since it represents a perspective which is quite common amongst the
Indian intelligentsia, it is worth considering. There is definitely an
iota of truth in this perspective, but I would think that in the overall
analysis, and given the constraints that we face, the world seems to be
moving in the right direction in becoming a safer place for all under the
"hegemony" of the USA which has a functioning democracy, and plenty of
checks and balances against abuse of power by any one individual.
Other sites of interest
Computer
Science in India report
Another
Computer Science in India report
A commonly cited piece of work (I will mention the source later, when I
find it)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A Summary of the World~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we could shrink the Earth's population to a village of precisely 100
people. With all existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look
like this:
There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western
Hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans.
51 would be female; 49
would be male
70 would be non-white; 30 white.
70 would be
non-Christian; 30 Christian.
50% of the entire world's wealth would be
in the hands of only 6
people and all 6 would be citizens of the
United States.
80 would live in substandard housing.
70 would be
unable to read.
50 would suffer from malnutrition.
1 would be near
death , 1 would be near birth
Only 1 would have a college
education.
No one would own a computer
When one considers our
world from such an incredibly compressed
perspective, the need for
both tolerance and understanding
becomes glaringly apparent........
