People's Democracy

THE December 13, terrorist attack on the Indian parliament and all other terrorist acts, especially in Jammu & Kashmir, are absolutely unpardonable. The trail of death and injury left behind by such mindless acts and the fear and hatred that has deeply scarred the psyche of those affected directly and indirectly in various ways are all matters to be treated with utmost concern. The perpetrators of these heinous acts, including their mentors wherever they are, deserve exemplary punishment. The events leading to December 13 have to be investigated thoroughly. What caused a once vibrant and largely secular Kashmiri society to seemingly split on communal lines? What are the grievances of the people? How did terrorist activities take root there? Why were large sections of Kashmiris forced to migrate out of the state? What are the internal and external factors that are behind this calamity? Does cold-war politics have anything to do with it? These are all issues that have to be squarely addressed. In short the entire Kashmir question needs to be re-appraised in a larger perspective - with developments in the sub-continent and as well as the global level.

The travails, tribulations and privations that the people of the region are forced to undergo under trying conditions also require to be understood with greater empathy and deeper understanding. In the prevailing situation, the strategy for rooting out terrorism should be formulated with special care. Counter-terrorism cannot end terrorism. If terrorism is defined as the indiscriminate and wanton killing of innocent and unarmed non-combatants, every effort should be made to protect the lives and rights of unarmed civilians while conducting operations to bring terrorists to justice. Taking little notice of these factors, some of the shrill rhetoric emanating from responsible quarters is about using 'any and every weapon' to win the war against terrorism without realising its consequences. Unfortunately, many seem to forget that nuclear weapon is the most potent terrorist weapon in existence. Its use under any circumstances would be nothing but a heinous crime against humanity. Therefore, any talk about winnable nuclear war is preposterous. For the present, therefore, this article will focus on the latter aspect.

Some of the statements about ways of tackling terrorism made by several leaders of the ruling alliance, including the parliament affairs minister, Pramod Mahajan, have been quite alarming. Reacting to this belligerent mood in the ruling circles, the Strategic Editor of The Hindu, Raja Mohan, could not but make a note of it in his column on December 31. According to him: "Coercive diplomacy has never been a characteristic feature of India's foreign policy. But by threatening an all out war with Pakistan that could escalate to the nuclear level, India has entered the uncharted waters of nuclear brinkmanship". Earlier The Times of India (December 27) had reported that: "Mahajan told an anti-terrorism rally organised by the ruling BJP that if circumstances 'pushed India' towards a war with Pakistan, New Delhi would make sure the threat of terrorism was completely stamped out."

The report quoted Mahajan as saying: "If at all the war happens the intensity will be so strong that there will be no need for a future war with Pakistan. And the results will be there for everyone to see." Surely, this was a statement that could not have been taken lightly. However, Dr K Subrahmanyam, India's leading strategic expert, chose to disagree with Raja Mohan' view. In his column in The Times of India (January 2), he said: "On no issue has there been so much disinformation than on the alleged possibility of nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan". Alas, no sooner had this opinion appeared in print, none other than the Indian prime minister himself came forward to contradict Dr Subrahmanyam.

The reported statement of prime minister Vajpayee during his speech in Lucknow on January 2 has not left any room for doubt. According to The Hindu (January 3) he stated that: "…no weapon would be spared in self-defence. Whatever weapon was available, it would be used no matter how it wounded the enemy." It is quite explicit what weapon he was referring to. But who is the enemy that he is targeting? Is it the mass of the people of Pakistan or is it the foreign and home-bread terrorists based in Pakistan and elsewhere? Can nuclear weapons differentiate between mass of the people and terrorists when they unleash destruction? Certainly the Indian prime minister is fully aware that nuclear weapons do not make any such distinction. Then with what responsibility has Vajpayee made such a sweeping statement? Or does the BJP-led government consider the entire population of Pakistan as the enemy. The government should forthwith clarify its stand, as there are other ominous signs as well.

Holding Pakistan squarely responsible for all the terrorist attacks against India, the RSS mouthpiece has minced no words about the befitting action that the government of India should take against Pakistan. The Organiser, in its editorial on December 30 stated that: "Its [Pakistan's] very existence has become inimical not only for India but for the entire civilised world. Pakistan deserves to be punished for all its errors of commission and omission…Time has come to solve the problem of Pakistan forever and for all." The import of this statement cannot be lost: punish Pakistan by obliterating it! (Mahajan's pronouncement, as mentioned earlier, was also on similar lines.) This bizarre advice cannot be dismissed offhand, as mere ravings of some lunatics, because the Indian prime minister himself is a prominent leader of that very RSS. Also the lingering memory about the terrible fate of Babri Masjid is still fresh in the minds of most people.

In this context the reported statement of George Fernandes, India's controversial defence minister, only reinforces the worst fears, which the Organiser has brought to the fore. According to The Hindu (January 4), the New York Times has quoted him as saying that India would resort to 'Military option if diplomacy fails'. (It is almost like saying that India would do all it can to ensure that diplomacy fails so that it can resort to military action!). Replying to questions, he is reported to have said that Pakistan's possession of nuclear arsenal would not deter India from taking military action. Giving reasons, he said: "I can't believe they would ever use it for the simple reason that they would be inviting a second strike. That would be devastating given Pakistan's size." In fact Fernandes was even more candid in a statement he had made earlier. According to the Hindustan Times (December 30), he bluntly said: "We could take a [nuclear] strike, survive and then hit back, Pakistan would be finished." The ramblings on the Pakistani side were not very different either. Not to be outdone in the war of rhetoric, Musharaff has reportedly said: "If any war is thrust on Pakistan, Pakistan's armed forces and the 140 million people of Pakistan are fully prepared to face all consequences with all their might." (The Week, January 6). It is simply incredible that people at the helm of affairs on both sides could make such chilling statements!

While Fernandes seems quite content to wipe out Pakistan and its people in retaliation, he appears to be least bothered about the casualties that India would suffer in case of a nuclear attack by Pakistan! Whether through a first strike or a second strike it is millions of lives that is likely to be lost on both sides in a nuclear war is a fact that is sought to be hidden in Fernandes' seemingly simple logic. Thus, it is clear that the Indian government's current strategy is certainly not to prevent a nuclear war but to win such a war under any circumstances irrespective of the enormous human and material costs it would inflict on both sides. The propagation of the idea of winnable nuclear war is what is most frightening.

In the light of the above, Vajpayee's feeble attempt to deny that he was talking of nuclear war with Pakistan makes little sense since the phrase "no matter how it wounded the enemy" conveys precisely what he had in mind. In whichever way it is interpreted, there is absolutely no ambiguity about his intent. Shocked by the bellicose stance of Vajpayee, The Times of India in its editorial on January 4 noted: "A mere 24 hours after he promised to go more than halfway to meet the Pakistan president and 'resolve any issue, including Kashmir', he was at his combative best, threatening the 'use of any and every weapon' against that country. His audience, which no doubt understood 'any weapon' to mean the nuclear weapon, lapped up the brave talk…. Unfortunately, words have a momentum of their own; even if they don’t translate as actual war, they can vitiate the domestic environment leading to polarisation of people on sectarian lines." The editorial in The Hindu (January 4), therefore, went on to warn the government that: "Such hawkish rhetoric [on the part of Vajpayee]…does not exactly square with the sort of statesmanship required at the present critical juncture, both on the Indo-Pakistan and the international fronts."

What is the consequence of this nuclear brinkmanship? According to Raja Mohan: "Brinkmanship is clearly a high risk strategy that would force India to confront rather difficult choices in the near feature…" But having said this he goes on to quote John Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State in the 1950s and one who was notorious for pushing the world to the edge of the nuclear precipice on several occasions. "The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war", Dulles said, is a "necessary art". The trouble with this perilous strategy is that if either side (or even one side) fails to (or is incapable of) mastering the 'necessary art', the result would be disastrous for both the sides.

Dr Subrahmanyam, who has discounted the possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, claims that his opinion is based on the pronouncement made by the Press Secretary to the Pakistan president, Maj. General Rashid Quereshi, on December 27. According to him: "General Rashid Quereshi tried to assure his countrymen and the rest of the world that both Pakistan and India were 'responsible nuclear powers' and that the nuclear weapons were only meant for deterrence. Therefore, he argued, there was no risk of escalation of the conflict to a nuclear level. But his observations have not received the attention they deserve." The above statement from the Pakistan side was, of course, very reassuring. Yet is there sufficient ground for the optimism that Dr Subrahmanyam has expressed? Unfortunately, no! That is because Dr Subrahmanyam has failed to address one crucial question.

The problem is what if deterrence fails? Can the possibility of deterrence failing be discounted? Of course not! At least the Draft 'Indian' Nuclear Doctrine, that is still in the process of being 'discussed and debated', certainly does not think so. It clearly stipulates that "India's strategic interests require…adequate retaliatory capacity should deterrence fail." In other words, despite India and Pakistan being "responsible nuclear powers", deterrence can fail! What would happen then? Just that the entire national edifice (or at least most of it), which nuclear weapons were supposed to protect in the first place, would be smothered to smithereens. The truth is nuclear weapons cannot offer any protection, they can only heap ruin on the adversary. Can 'nuclear deterrence' be a credible national security policy, if the cost of its failure is death and devastation on an unimaginable scale?