ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Theatre of Strife

We all know the reason for the sudden change in our nuclear policy.

She lives in Chennai, speaks convent English, terrorises her flock, and is too large to be ignored. Politically or otherwise.

But the purpose of this column is not to talk about the change in our nuclear policy. It is to look at its implications. I do not know enough about the state of our nuclear preparedness nor do I have any secret insight into India's security compulsions. Without these, I think it is stupid to pass judgement on what the Vajpayee government has done.

Yet this has not stopped our amateur analysts from jumping into the fray. Some have hailed the tests as India's emergence as a nuclear superpower. Others have decried it as an act of political suicide. Both reactions seem rather far fetched to me because in a world teeming with nuclear weapons, what difference does it make when two states who are known have access to bomb making technology suddenly decide to flaunt it?

Security threats, if indeed they exist, cannot be tabled in public. We have to depend on the political integrity of our netas when they take decisions like this. If we cannot, it only reflects on the kind of people we ourselves elect. It is no use blaming the BJP. We have voted them to office and must learn to live with their decisions, however flawed they may appear to be. The only choice before us is to exercise our franchise with greater circumspection next time.

As for our bombs, who cares how effective they are? We can never use them against Pakistan without blowing off our own arms and legs. Just as Pakistan can never use their bombs against us without destroying themselves at the same time. This is the inexorable logic of nuclear conflict, the danger of living next to each other as hostile neighbours.

For that one shining moment, when we tested our bombs last month, we felt we were equal to America. It took barely a week for the euphoria to vanish when Pakistan exploded its own bombs. We came down to earth with a thud. To realise that we were (once again) forced to be equal to Pakistan. The status quo was back. Give or take a dozen nuclear devices and billions of dollars that we have both lost in sanctions.

We must realise that this is a Mexican stand-off. No one wins, no one can win this race. All it will do is set us both back by a decade. We can only take pride in the fact that India may survive this setback but Pakistan, whose economy is already on the drip, could end up as a basket case. But is that all we want as a nation? The destruction of Pakistan?

And why is President Clinton the bad guy? The poor man was hysterical when we tested our bombs, true. But he was as hysterical when Pakistan tested their's. He took no sides. He wore his anger on his sleeve because he knows that a nuclear conflict anywhere in the world (however remote from the North American continent) will hurt the United States as terribly. In economic terms. In environmental terms. For we have crossed the stage where wars can be fought and won on regional turf.

With bigger and more powerful nuclear bombs in the arsenal of nations, it is becoming impossible to limit the damage. You cannot have a nuclear blast in South Asia and expect America to remain unscarred. The whole world will be endangered, not just Delhi or Islamabad. Mushroom clouds and radioactivity are not easy to contain when you share, as we do, one world, one environment. You cannot ruin it in one place without its frightening impact being felt everywhere.

That is why no one will sit back and watch this arms race. Millions of investors have a stake out here. They want their money, their people, their factories protected. They will not allow us to fight a foolish, futile war that can yield no winners. For a nuclear conflict ends up with only losers. And the losers are not only those nations stupid enough to start such a conflict. Everyone loses. The costs of war are too high.

Can you blame Clinton for being worried? Can you blame him for trying to pressurise us to return to the negotiating table. He is not worried about India or Pakistan. He is worried about America. We are being foolish when we abuse him for imposing sanctions against us. Even as we turn a Nelson's eye to the fact that he has also imposed equally tough (if not tougher and infinitely more hurtful) sanctions against Pakistan. We are accusing him of being soft on Pakistan. But that is exactly what Pakistan is also accusing him of. Of being soft on India.

We say that Clinton is soft on Pakistan because he can sell weapons to them. Pakistan says he is soft on India because we have a huge, unexplored market (and a 500 million strong middle class) which his MNCs are keen to exploit. The truth is that Clinton is a convenient villain for both of us. A cop has no friends. Particularly when he wields a baton in self righteous rage.

I believe it makes sense for India, at this stage, to make friends with Clinton. His interests and America's interests are exactly the same as ours. Plus, we share a common political system, a strong business rishta that has grown during the past five years. In the long run, we can both gain from this. America gains a market. We gain a strong ally. America knows this even though it may choose, out of historic compulsions, to treat Pakistan and India as equals today. India and Pakistan are not equals. Everyone knows that. Including Clinton. That is why billions of dollars flow into India every year as investment while Pakistan stays afloat on handouts and aid.

The problem with Clinton is his political idiom. He is brash, offensive, very much in the face. His tone, too, has not been exactly temperate. He sounds like a bully even when he doesn't mean to. But a bully to both sides. That is the saving grace. That, in the ultimate analysis, he has taken neither side. Not our's. Nor Pakistan's.

There is still time for us to back off. To back off from an arms race we cannot afford. For Pakistan to back off from its stupid games, aiding and abetting terrorism. And for President Clinton, if he indeed wants to play a meaningful role, to adopt the right idiom for a purposeful dialogue. So that we can return to the talking table and hammer out a durable peace. Instead of growling at each other, ruining our economies for all time.

When passions run high, the idea of compromise sounds effete, cowardly. But in a world like ours, where power has many faces, it is only the brave who can dare to speak the language of peace, who can risk the challenge of fighting against the rhetoric of nationalism and jingoistic fervour, who can stand up for what is wise and courageous and the honourable thing to do. The greatest Indian of this century did it. Gandhi. And he did it to win a war that, for over two centuries, seemed almost unwinnable.

Maybe there is a lesson for all of us there.

Strife is the theatre of fools.

Modern India cannot afford to be foolish just to show the world how brave we are.

Pritish Nandy

Tell us what you think of this report