Pokhran-Chaghi audit: Winners and losers

Re: Zeemax [``...Where did you learn anyone dies in Pakistan of starvation ? You are sadly and totally misinformed...``]

You are absolutely right, my friend, people in Pakistan are certainly not dying of starvation. They don`t wait for that to happen. They are pre-empting death from starvation by committing suicides in ever increasing numbers. If you read Dawn (or any other paper) and have read the human rights commission reports, you will not call these suicides ``totally misinformed``.

Also, I have one more comment about `national security`. How does one define it? Is it not helpful to first examine our concept of what is meant by a nation state. Here, I think, is the root of all disagreements. Its a philosophical difference. There are two divergent views.

One view point focuses narrowly on the geo-political entity and all the institutional abstractions that make it up and represented by the flag, the slogans, the anthams etc. This is the ``hawk view`` of what a nation state is. The abstract state is considered the holiest of sacred cows and anything and everything is subserviant to it, any cost is legitimate that supposedly `defends` the interest of this abstract geo-political entity.

The second view is the ``dove view``. In this way of thinking the every day people are of central importance and their rights are sacred. All institutions and laws have, as their primary objective, the protection of the peace, prosperity and justice for the average person.

This is a view which the powerful and those who have vested insteres in the status quo, can never allow to become popular. This is the crux of the arguments that go on here. You are simply not talking about the same thing.

The hawk will insist that if the country is not `secure` the right of the individual will become meaningless. And thus when we take this mentality and proceed we get Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler and millions and millions of miserable people in the name of the `nation state`.

I say that nationalism is the most malignant social cancer of our age. It is a curse.

...SR

FerozK #14

This is what you had said in #10 :

Quote

Re: zeemax

You said that national security comes before all else. Just one question though; if the people, who are supposed to be defended, are dying from starvation then what good is a national security or its means, which can not help them?

Unquote

Zeemax

Re: zeemax # 13

After re-reading the posts, this what I had written: ``In the case of Pakistan, there has to be a balance, because soon there will no one left to defend - they will all have died from stravation`` I never said pers se that people are dying from stravation in Pakistan and that was your interpretation what I had said.

What I meant to say was that just spending money on defence will not increase Pakistan`s overall security in the long run. Granted that Pakistani nuclear testing created a sense of parity with India, but it almost lost that sense of security-parity when the sanctions were imposed on it and it almost defaulted. Pakistan should carefully review the example of the Soviet Union and realize that military might without an economic infrastructure supporting it is meaningless.

All Soviet missiles and all the Soviet tanks could not prevent it from an economic collapse and the same fate awaits Pakistan if it engages in an arms race with India. There is nothing wrong with Pakistan maintaining a crediable defense against India, but it should not go for a conventional or nuclear parity with India, because such a scenrio will be counter-productive to its interests. Pakistan can not hope to match India for each dollar spend on defence. It can do so for a limited time if it wants to, but at a huge cost and such a arms race with India will only have diminishing returns for Pakistan.

Pakistan`s security needs will not be achieved no matter how many missiles it deploys against India. Pakistan`s overall security lies in reviving its economic base, which in turn could support its military force projections against India.

Re Ferozek

Where did you learn anyone dies in Pakistan of starvation ? You are sadly and totally misinformed.

Re: Jay

Yeah, I agree that B-2 bomber is a waste of money. Instead of pouring money into the B-2s, Pentagon needs to divert those financial resources into the construction of more aircraft carriers. There is more force projection in one carrier battle group than there is with a wing of B-2s!

Chinese know this and are aready working on their first carriers.

The article by focussing on only one aspect of the nuclear `industry`, the bomb, has led itself to an intractable question.

The cost of billions quoted for the indian program is for the entire nuclear industry. There are five operational nuclear power stations designed and built by india, the second commercial fast breeder reacor is under construction, heavy water is being exported, radio active material needed for medical and industrial purposes are indigenously produced.

The age old nauseating argument that there are poor india, they need food has been dished out to the rest of the world by the west to stymy any technological progress in other countries. It is depressing to see this coming from a pakistani prof.

No body dares to tell the americans that there are two million homeless in their country, may one less B1 bomber can house them all. India account for a significant part of the humanity, we have people in all sorts of socio economic class and we need every technology. The prof should not forget that the industrial revolution led to colonialism, technology is the key, including nuclear

Even though I disagree with the Professor`s overall analysis, I still am of the opinion that he has raised an interesting point here. I also think that the InterActs! so far have failed dwell on the one question, which Pervez Hoodbhoy raised in his article. No one is denying the necessity of either India or Pakistan aquiring nuclear power status, which is within their sovereign national rights. The real question is how do we deal with the aftermath of the tests; politically, militarily and environmentally.

These weapons have a tangible cost associated with their deployment and in this case, I have more faith in the sanity of Pakistani and Indian military leadership than I have in our collective politicans. Yes, we do not generally like what Dr. Hoodbhoy has to say, because we are still suffering from a hangover from our nuclear party and are not interested in cleaning up the mess have created. Whether we like or not, we have to start answering the questions of what are we supposed do with this newly found status.

A year has slipped by and we are still debating a moot point. Whatever reasons prompted India and Pakistan to test their nuclear weapons have to take a back seat to the consideration of how India and Pakistan will manage their nuclear power status and that is what the article was trying to focus on. The article was not questioning the justification for the nuclear testing, but was seeking to rationalize the post-nuclear environment on the sub-continent.

Re: Amit

I can understand your argument, but turing these weapons into a South Asian force d` frappe, aiming these weapons externally, will not help the over all situation either. Xenophobia will not help, because it will breed isolationism and that will lead to misunderstandings, which in the long run will benefit no one.

Re: zeemax

You said that national security comes before all else. Just one question though; if the people, who are supposed to be defended, are dying from stravtion then what good is a national security or its means, which can not help them?

In the case of Pakistan, there has to be a balance, because soon there will no one left to defend - they will all have died from stravation. You may have the bomb, but if it can not feed the people, then what is the utility of it. If you follow your logic through its final end, you`ll will end up defending a nation full of corpses and I do not see how that will secure Pakistan`s national security in the long term!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The diversity of opinions, half-truths and double-speak on the kashmir issue leaves one dazed. In the Pakistani media one reads of the attrocities commited by the Indian soldiers on kashmiris. In the Indian Media the situation is reversed. On looking at the ``big pcture`` ones sees the fact that both India and Pakistan cannot afford to go to war. The nuclear bragging just shows our mentality - it can never be actually used - firstly we would wipe ourselves out and secondly the world would never forgive us. Even today we look upon each German action with ``nazi`` suspicion. On the Indian side - the ground reality is that 1000 million Indians see Kashmir as an integral part of India. Going to war in ones own country is entirely different from fighting in another`s land - as the Americans in Vietnam and Russians in Afghanistan found out. Therefore Pakistan has no chance of solving the kashmir issue (to their benefit) by war, either straight war or war by proxy - sending in merceneries. India has too much manpower and technology. The answer staring at both parties is to adopt the LoC as the border. However this would result in ``loss of face`` for both Pakistan and India - and so each tries for the unachievable - complete victory.

Neat. Just one small point, do you foresee a day when we on the sub-C may need this stuff against ``them``? THEM= maybe China maybe the US, how do I know?

Re: Studebaker

As the saying goes, people who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. The subcontinent has faced not just one enemy but numerous enemies from all over the world over time. Last year I was visiting England and I could not believe that these people ruled us with their boots on our necks for 200 years. If you look at the combined strength of the subcontinent, the sikhs, pathans, jats, rajputs, you name it, it is unbelievable that we were conquered so effortlessly by a third rate nation like UK. They exploited our weaknesses to the full and enslaved us. Our future adversaries may attempt to exploit the same weaknesses but they will remember that we have nuclear weapons which we will use as a last resort. If they are willing to pay the price, then that is fine.

It is a dubious argument that development gets affected by nuclear weapons. China has nuclear weapons for the past several decades and it is doing very well economically. In fact the western nations treat China with respect and are beginning to consider it as a formidable rival. The western nations are in no mood to give up their nukes but they love to preach us the virtues of being without any nukes.

Yes, we are in a bad shape economically but who is reponsible for that ? The british sucked our blood for 200 years and reduced us from the richest, civilized nation in the world to a bunch of beggars fighting over religion. Estimates suggest that hundreds of billions of dollars worth of wealth was transferred out of India by the British and they justify it by saying that they put up some railways and post office. As if we would have never had railways without the British. Should we let this sort of thing happen again ?

What kind of thinking you`re developing?Everytime you write something about Pakistan your disdain for the country,its people and its religion transparently seeps through.Doesn`t anything good appears to you here.This country needs people who have their feet planted firmly in the land,hearts throbbing with its love and minds acquiring learning to improve it.You seem to be dreaming of a lifestyle which can somehow be transplanted from the firangi-lands and overnight the country will look `modern`.This country needs people who feel proud to be part of the so-called `illeterate` awam.Please don`t unload the white man`s burden simply to carry it on your back.

Will Rogers,the American Indian,of Muslim heritage said:Everbody is Ignorant--at a different time and at a different place.Please don`t let your foreign degrees hoodwink you.

You say ``Uranium there was plenty of, but bread and clean drinking water there was little.``

What good is water and bread if you don`t have national security. Security comes first, everything else follows. Do you really believe we would be living with dignity, indeed living at all without a tit-fir tat response ? Would we have dared to down two Indian warplanes over our territory ? Wouldn`t Azad Kashmir have fallen by now ?

The situation over Kargil is exactly the same as in 1965. Only difference is then India was able to escalate by opening new fronts, now they can`t !

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The author has made valid points about the presence of nuclear weapons in the subcontinent. However, he is missing the big picture. Let us look at the history of the subcontinent. We have suffered continuous foreign invasions for the past 5000 years. The long list includes virtually everyone such as Aryans, Greeks, Central Asians, Scythians, Huns, Arabs, Persians, Mongols, Turks, British etc. What is there to show that history will not repeat itself in the future ? This is not just an Indian thing. Every invasion of India has passed through or included Pakistan as well. Just imagine if the dravidians, hindus or mughals had nuclear weapons in the face of foreign invasions. The subcontinent would have been a different place.

It is no consolation that we can continuously absorb people from all over the world. I think both Indians and Pakistanis have had enough of foreign occupations and nuclear weapons guarantee that your way of life will not be disrupted by others. The key thing is for us to understand our strengths and develop a relationship of mutual respect. We should point the nukes against outsiders, not against each other.