HVK Archives: Don't throw away the front door
Don't throw away the front door - The Times of India
M D Nalapat
()
12 September 1996
Title : Don't throw away the front door
Author : M D Nalapat
Publication : The Times of India
Date : September 12, 1996
It would be wonderful if the world were what the Indian
supporters of CTBT assume it to be. According to them,
the whole world is peace-loving, except India. if only
this country were to disarm itself, the scourge of
nuclear weapons would be eradicated. The reality is
different.
The Narasimha Rao government was cavalier about national
security, making the same assumptions as the CTBT
supporters, or British politicians such as Baldwin and
Chamberlain during the inter-war years: that potential
aggressors may holler, but not throw missiles or bombs.
Under Mr Rao, India all but scuttled its Agni and nuclear
programmes. The result was not peace but an
intensification of Pakistan's covert war in Kashmir and
the north-east. More dangerously, the Chinese and the
Americans joined hands to supply Islamabad with armaments
and technology.
The "reward" India got for the restraint showed by it
during the Rao years was a resumption of the U.S. arms
supply relationship with Pakistan, a deepening of the
China-Pakistan axis and an increase in western pressure
on India to make concessions on Kashmir. The Clinton
administration, obviously out of nostalgia for the U.S.
President's college years in Britain, is following
Chamberlain in attempting to weaken a putative ally
against future threats. In 1938, Britain and France
destroyed the military potential of Czechoslovakia, in
the process strengthening Nazi Germany.
Today, President Bill Clinton is attempting to destroy
the military potential of the world's most populous
democracy in order to serve the strategic interests of
the world's largest dictatorship and its ally, a
fundamentalist state with its central creed that Muslims
need their own homeland and should not live as part of
multi. religious societies. This very creed, In fact,
was enunciated by Mr Louis Farrakhan In the U.S. However,
India cannot be as nonchalant about the threat posed by
China and Pakistan as Is the White House.
China is run by a dictatorial clique presiding over an
economy that will soon be the biggest in the world. In
its dealings with India, Vietnam and other south-east
Asian countries, China has made clear that the use or the
threat - of force is an essential component of its
diplomacy. India, a future superpower, has strategic
objectives in south and south-east Asia.
In South Asia, it would like to prevent the interference
of outside powers In bilateral questions involving
Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan
and Bangladesh. These should be settled among the South
Asian countries themselves. In south-east Asia, India
has an interest In ensuring that no country achieves
hegemony over the region and that the different states in
south-east Asia are free to pursue their own paths
towards economic expansion.
Turning to Central and West Asia, India has an Interest
in ensuring that the growth of religious fundamentalism
is checked in these regions. It is no accident that
Malaysia, Indonesia or Singapore have registered better
progress than Pakistan. It is no accident that India is
more stable politically than Saudi Arabia. Should the
fundamentalism practised by Islamabad or Riyadh sweep the
CIS states or India - as has already been attempted in
Kashmir - several countries here may resemble Bosnia.
While it would make sense for West Asia to pool its
synergies with India (for example in the development of
new technologies), Pakistan Is attempting to block such
cooperation by presenting this country as " anti-Muslim".
In this, Pakistan serves the interests of those who seek
to keep India economically weak and West Asia a
technological dwarf. As for China, the feverish way In
which it has been propping up Pakistan's nuclear and
missile programmes Indicates that it sees India as a
threat to its hegemony over the region.
The more India develops, the greater will be the
temptation for Its two strategic foes to intervene
decisively before the takeoff that will put this country
beyond range of harm. While China has in the past helped
militants in the north-east, these days it is content to
leave such menial chores to the ISI, even while ensuring
that Pakistan gets the technology it needs to blackmail
India. As for the U.S., like Britain and France in the
1930s, it is obsessed less with dealing with the twin
threats of fundamentalism and dictatorship represented by
China and Pakistan than with appeasing them, usually at
India's expense.
One presumes that our CTBT enthusiast has a front door
fitted to his house. One also presumes that he has a
door to his bedroom and locks in his house. This is not
because he is aggressive, but because he wants to prevent
aggression.
An adequate nuclear and missile capability is India's
equivalent of Mr Bidwai's front door. It is needed not
because India is aggressive, but to prevent aggression
against itself and its strategic allies in Asia. just as
the U.S., France and Britain need a nuclear deterrent in
this age of 'Kalyug', so does India.
One fails to understand the logic behind the assertion
that the U.S., France and Britain need a nuclear shield,
but India - faced by an assertive China and a rampaging
Pakistan - can do without it. Perhaps we should feel
flattered. Perhaps the reason is that these countries
believe that Indians are immune to radiation.
Unfortunately, they are wrong.
A nuclear blast can kill Indians just as it can other
human beings. And the only defence against a country
equipped with a nuclear bomb is to have a deterrent in
the shape of a bomb and Its carrier ourselves. If this
means 'isolation', then that is preferable to Armageddon.
Back
Top
|
