|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
COMMENTARY
|
|
|
E-mail from readers the world over
Date sent: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:42:37 -0500 (CDT) This is the text of a protest letter that I have circulated among numerous friends and colleagues regarding India's recent nuclear tests. I hope you will publish this so that it may reach a wider audience and present an alternative viewpoint. In my own small way I am trying to protest this and I hope you will read what I have to say. It is well known that politics and geopolitics are based on "realities" and "practicalities." I want to say that no matter how compelling the argument, and no matter if it is correct, there are some issues where arguments based on such factors have no validity. The argument as put forward by the Government of India may be interpreted as follows: 1. Immediate concerns: There is an emerging nexus between North Korea, China, and Pakistan which has resulted in a frequent flow of nuclear and missile materials from North Korea and China to Pakistan. Despite the fact that the US Congress has cited no less than 21 such violations by China in the last three years, on only one occasion has a sanction been imposed. India says the US has remained a silent witness to such flagrant violations of both international and US laws, particularly since China and Pakistan have, since Nixon, enjoyed a special relationship with the US. Thus, if the US cannot exercise leverage in Asia and the subcontinent, but must consistently ignore the security interests of India, then India has no choice but to fashion its own nuclear response. This is related to a more geopolitical view taken by India and which is the second point below: 2. Long-term geopolitical concerns: Jawaharlal Nehru was the primary initiator of the test-ban treaty (now called the CTBT) which he proposed in 1954. As he envisioned, the nuclear race was accelerating in the West, and the only way to stop this was to begin serious work on limiting nuclear tests as an initial goal to universal disarmament. Since then India had always taken the line that both the form and substance of subsequent versions of the NPT and the CTBT do little to stop the nuclear menace, if the five powers insist on holding on to their nuclear weapons. Thus, the only way India would acquiesce to either the NPT or CTBT was if the major powers committed to a TIMETABLE of universal disarmament. If they did not, then India saw no reason to sign a treaty where the only powers that did have such weapons were outside the scope of the treaties. Nuclear hegemony would be preserved by (largely) Western powers and India would have no bargaining chip in forcing disarmament. This, in my opinion, is both a morally and ethically valid stand. The situation changed in 1974 when India tested its first device. It served as a warning signal to the five powers of a latent capability, but after that it supposedly put its nuclear weapons programme on hold. Thus, according to India since 1974, and for 24 years, India has waited in the sidelines for the nuclear powers to dismantle their weapons and has shown great restraint in not pursuing a weapons policy. What it has seen on the contrary is that there is no sign that such a goal will ever be reached, principally because the five powers refuse to give up their weapons, and in the case of Russia and China (see my first point about China) proliferation is indeed alive and well. In fact, it impacts India's ability to defend itself. Now, here is the most important fallout of the situation that has also at its roots a fear of domination (the colonial legacy), and the feeling that India is always seen as "that nice pacifist non violent guy who is poor and unable to exercise any influence anywhere." The end result of these processes was that "enough is enough." If the five powers are not going to listen to the largest democracy with nearly a billion people, then India will force the issue and join the club. This way, they would have to listen to India, because, strategically, India can no longer be thought of as insignificant, or counted on as being nice but ineffectual. This is my reading of the short and long term goals of the decision to become the sixth declared nuclear power. I am presenting it here for two reasons: 1. Yes, the attitude of the five powers is self serving and at times hypocritical. They and their citizens must address these issues if they expect to free the world of this nuclear menace. 2. It is hard to argue for something that is morally correct without indicating how dangerous the politics of "pragmatism" is when it relates to nuclearisation. Because the two points I raised above, regarding the Indian government's stand, are essentially correct. However, does it make it right? I take one point of view and one alone: It is morally and ethically unacceptable to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter if we say that others have it but we don't, because the issue is global and not multilateral. It impacts all people everywhere, particularly those who have no means to defend themselves in the event of a fallout. This is the one instance where the collective action of all nations is a must, and the one instance where the harshest criticism from the smallest of nations can make a difference simply because of the unconscionable nature of nuclear war. If India had followed Nehru's original plan, rigidly adhering to his vision, it would have eventually disturbed the conscience of even the most die-hard nuclear hawk in the West. This requires both courage and patience. Courage, because in the short term it would require a weakened India to face external aggression; patience because it is always harder and takes longer to make changes by peaceful than violent methods. I believe, India due to its size, population, an ancient culture, and being the source of many of the major pacifist philosophies of the world had the moral weight to take such a stand. It may have been sneered at, ignored, treated with derision and contempt, but eventually, its voice would have prevailed. Consider this. It is just a matter of a few years before India gets a place in the Security Council (now, it may no longer be possible). Its case would have been further strengthened if it had followed the above policy. Once in the Security Council, even if it had no veto powers, it could have had major nuisance value. In matters of conscience, one needs to nag, nag, and nag. In matters that affect humanity one needs to be righteous and take a morally lofty stand. Although this attitude would be both insufferable and hard to swallow, it would have results because it appeals to our better instincts. It makes us uneasy and it would goad us to becoming better human beings. This is a stand based on conscience, stripped off practical considerations. It may take generations before the ideas takes hold universally, and it makes no guarantees that other terrible things will not happen in the meantime. But it acts as a vital brake on the process in the interim and it is the most sensible way to assure the safety of the planet. It is certainly better than hoping that a nuclear deterrent that plays on fear would achieve the same thing. I would like to say that India has lost this chance. As an Indian I mourn this, because I have always taken pride in the fact that we did things differently. We were not concerned too much by what others thought of us, but in our own muddled way, we listened to our conscience and we did the best we could without seeking to interfere with others (Indo-Pak relations and the brief interference in Sri Lanka are exceptions, but no Indian government until now ever articulated a global strategy.) For a country so large, it has never promoted or exported any ideology that serves only itself. No major nation in the history of the world can claim this. But we can. Thus, this emergence of India as a nationalistic beast that seeks parity with the major nuclear powers is anathema to me. I am disturbed by it and I don't want it. I mourn the loss of an image I had, of India that was at once, deeply spiritual, moral, maybe materially poor, but yet also so rich and so humane. I protest not just this deplorable test, but more so the erosion of a system of values. Thank you for taking the time to read this protest.
Rama Ratnam
Date sent: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:36:44 -0700 The US response was clearly a double standard. In times like this, one democracy should support another. I hope Indians around the world support the Indian government. Sriram
Date sent: Thu, 14 May 1998 23:49:14 -0000 I am wondering after all this rhetoric about India going nuclear, can we ever see an end to the crisis in Kashmir? If the US can go and bomb all the Libyan terrorist hideouts why can't we do the same in our own Kashmir and also the so-called 'Pak Occupied Kashmir.' I agree it is an extreme step and an extreme step is always appreciated like we appreciated the 'extreme' five nuclear tests. We always ask 'if the US can do this why can't we do it?' Well now if the US could attack Libya why shouldn't India attack Kashmiri terrorist hideouts -- overtly or at least covertly. Destroy them forever (I am frustrated -- do you call me a frustrated nationalist?) With nuclear tests we have proved that we are not going to show our 'other cheek' any more, well prove it more often, not with just one macho gesture. Sahadev Komaragiri
Date sent: Fri, 15 May 1998 04:40:40 +0530 I have taken the liberty to write to all of you though I don't know most of you. But I think I do know you as fellow Indians. I would appreciate you taking your time to read through this. Thanks in advance for you time. As you know there are sanctions being slapped on India, for the recent nuclear tests. I am not going to discuss or argue the probity of such an action. I am only interested in containing the adverse impact of such a move against India. What the sanctions mean, is effectively a reduced inflow of foreign currency. Though most of the aid is used for non commercial or development purposes, the impact would nevertheless be felt in the economy as a whole. And any setbacks in the industrial sector due to sanctions or other new trade restrictions will result in reduced sales, which essentially slows down the economy as a whole. A slow down in the economy means many things: It means, reduced taxes (indirect ones) reduced duties, which translates to reduced revenues. That translates to increased deficit in the budget. An increased deficit in the budget could mean lesser money for infrastructural development, health care spendings etc. Thus you can see the negative effects of a slow down in the economy. It might not happen overnight, but will definitely happen over a period of time. So here is what we can do as NRIs to help keep the economy thriving. Send in more money home from the next month on. If you can afford it make it $ 100 more than you regularly send. Or maybe you could send 10% more whichever you are most comfortable with. I would recommend at least $ 100 though. And ask your family to spend at least 60% of that extra money (which would be $ 60 if you send $ 100 extra home). And for the rest of the 40% ask them to save it, invest it or donate for charitable purposes, whichever you deem fit. The reason for spending 60% is to boost the economic activity in the short and the reason for saving the 40% or diverting it to other good purposes is to take care of the long term. You might think it to be an insignificant one, but see the larger picture. If a million NRIs were to send in the extra $ 100 every month for the next 12 months the forex inflow is going to increase by $ 100 million every month (that's more than a billion dollars in the next one year). What it means is increased forex reserves to see India through the sanctions and an economy which will not slow down (due to the 60% spending of the extra inflow) due to the sanctions. I think we as Non Resident Indians are in a unique position to help keep our economy back home in a good shape by doing this. Please pass this on to your NRI friends and relatives. FYI, I suggested this in the Rediff chat on May 13th, 2000 hours IST and a lot of NRIs were excited about it, and have said a resounding yes to this "NRI 100" movement. I hope you will do too... A big movement begins with a small step at a time. Let's unite in spirit and make this happen. Regards to all of you and Jai Hind. Valli
Date sent: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:34:28 -0400 The first time I came out of India fifteen years ago, I bumped into some Pakistanis and realised for the first time that we share the same heritage and for some, even the language. It is a feeling that is shared by many of my Indian friends. Who are we fighting really? At a time, when Germany has united and Korea is coming together, we still talk about two (or three) separate nations based solely on religion. Just take a look at Ireland and see what is happening. Even Israel and Palestinians are sitting down to talk. Contrast this to our 50 years of successful diplomacy! Let us not forget that economic might must accompany the military might in order to reach true greatness we crave. China has a seat in the Security Council because it is an economic power and it changed its course to become one. We still talk about Swadeshi knowing very well that in today's global economy, we are also free to sell globally if we fixed our quality, our marketing and our image, the way the Koreans and many other before that did! The voices that support Indian bombs are people who have a myopic view. The vast majority of Indians would much rather have sanitary facilities, better roads and safe drinking water. I would much rather tell the Indian body politic, to learn how we can spend more on education and other pressing needs. Japan and Germany do not have the bomb and yet everyone listens to them. Even tiny Singapore, which routinely takes first place on many counts on the world map, shows how the right policies can work miracles, even for a resource-poor state. I would much rather be known as one coming from a country that has 100% literacy or excellent health care for all. We are smart and we can do it if we do not miss the boat this time by playing this suicidal game. I feel sorry when a minister who wanted Coca-Cola to divulge its recipe (at a time when Deng Xiao Ping was undertaking a very unconventional approach), on his second round, whips up useless fears to justify an action that has once again, very short term goals. May be it is time to rethink as to who our real enemies are! Pradip K Dev
Date sent: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:21:04 -0700 I think the biggest outcome of this nuke blowout is that it finally shut Jayalalitha's big mouth for the last couple of days! Haven't heard any new demands to throw out the corruption charges against her in the last couple of days. Atta Boy, Atal Bhai!! Naren
Date sent: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:00:01 -0700 Your continuation of this behaviour is an insult to the legacy of Gandhi! Stephen
Date sent: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:11:19 +0200 I am Indian born and have been living in Sweden since last 20 years. I fully support the Indian government for this test although I am a Muslim. Another country has no right to interfere in any other country's development. I am very proud. Even if the world puts sanctions against India it's the duty of all those who live abroad to support our country and show that all Indians -- whatever may be the religion we are supporting our country so the world knows that India has great potential to achieve success. The USA just cannot prohibit us from making nuclear weapons. Moreover, India is situated between Pakistan and China -- both of whom are enemies. They can attack India any time and we must be able to protect our country no matter whatever happens. Our Muslim brothers, if they read this article they would call me non Muslim but in reality there is not a single verse in the Quran which says that you have to kill your brothers in order to gain something, but it says that if a person attacks without any reason than he can protect himself for defence that is what India is doing. I hope now the world knows that India is sovereign and the world community has to accept India in the UN and give us permanent membership. Javid Ghoghai
Date sent: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:00:53 -0700 What did the USA do when they found a nuclear arsenal in Israel? In fact, the Reagan administration increased foreign aid to them, what happened to South Africa who got most of their arsenal from Israel? Do not let the whites tell us how we should defend ourselves while they are busily arming Pakistan and Afghanistan. America is a big business and as long as American companies are making their sale it is okay. Any indigenous development is considered a threat to their concept of world peace. The only country that used this arsenal is America on Japan. I just heard a "white" speaking on a radio talk show that Indians have a hatred for Muslims, this dummy did not know that over 120 million Muslims live within India. These half-baked racists are the ones who want to control India's destiny and its borders. Last week some mercenaries came from Afghanistan and massacred 26 Hindus, where is the outcry from the West? INDIA SHOULD DEVELOP THE BOMB AND BE A MEMBER OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS A NUCLEAR CLUB.
Date sent: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:48:35 PDT Ms Lodhi, like many Pakistanis, is under the impression that Pakistan is somehow 'equal' to India. This is a serious misconception that needs to be corrected immediately. Pakistan is just a sovereign state, nothing more. India respects that. But Pakistan is not in India's league. It cannot hope to match India in size or resources or her achievements or anything else for that matter. If Pakistan is going to match India, 'step-for-step' as its leaders often boast, they should perhaps start with their constitution. Just trying to match India as regards nuclear developments is sure to drive them to bankruptcy. I recall the former PM of Pakistan, Mr Bhutto, promising that Pakistanis would 'eat grass' till they matched the 1974 explosion. Given the current economy of Pakistan, that situation is not very far removed from reality. If Ms Lodhi has the interests of the average Pakistani in mind, she would do better to refrain the current leaders from embarking on a journey that they cannot complete, rather than call for sanctions against India. Krishna How Readers reacted to Dilip D'Souza's last column How Readers reacted to Saisuresh Sivaswamy's last column
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
||