[sacw] We, the People: Weaponisation & Citizenship

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asians Against Nukes Dispatch
16 September 1999
------------------------------------------------------

`We, the People' : Weaponisation and Citizenship

By Manabi Majumdar
[August, 1999.]

A year after Pokharan II nuclear explosions and a few weeks after
the publication of the draft nuclear doctrine, this note is addressed not
to the politicians and policy makers who are directly responsible for
conducting those tests or drafting the `nucl ear doctrine', nor to the
group of scientists whose active interests and efforts, sadly misdirected,
have made such tests possible, nor to the military-industrial complex,
national and international, whose vested interests relentlessly fuel the
engine of weaponisation worldwide. Understandably, a variety of comments
and criticisms have been levelled against them and their activities during
the course of the year by persons of diverse analytical and political
proclivities. Here I intend to divert our atten tion away from `them' to
`us' - to the generic public, to ordinary people, to relatives, friends,
colleagues and neighbours who are my fellow citizens on a day-to-day
basis.
Most of us are not directly involved in the act of weaponisation -
nuclear or otherwise, but we have an opinion about the nation's nuclear
policies and more particularly about the recent nuclear tests. Very
disturbingly, for many of us, this opinion is q uite positive,
occasionally veering towards a vulgar and alarming tone of jingoism
(though the initial euphoria amongst some of us has died down over time).
However distressed, one cannot dismiss this hard reality as mere trivia,
since it involves a large number of people around us whose views, or more
appropriately, blissful indifference, inaction and passivism do create a
congenial yet inert public opinion - an ideal atmosphere within which
elite-dominated, citizen-irreverent public policies are spawned .
While one may retain a basic faith in the old maxim that `all the
people cannot be fooled all the time', one cannot but acknowledge the
dangerous possibility that a sizable number of people can be effectively
persuaded within quite a short period of time to suspend their refined
common sense and judgments about things that really matter in their
day-to-day living and to believe instead in the illusion that the
so-called military security will enhance human security; that flexing of
our nuclear muscles wi ll literally energize the muscles of our teeming
millions who are poor, famished and malnourished and help them cope with
the perpetual vulnerabilities which `adorn' their daily existence.
This is the delusion many of us have descended into in recent
times. How has it got to be this way in a country with a legacy of passive
resistance, non-alignment movements and democratic socialism? Postponing
the examination of this momentous issue for now, here I only underline the
supreme need to acknowledge the reality of such a mass-mesmerization; as a
fellow citizen I find it important to comprehend this not-so-insignificant
support for pro-nuclear policies. Such act of comprehension and serious re
cognition of the ground reality alone can enable us to launch a strategy
of counter-persuasion. That is to say, the plentiful nuclear-philists
amidst us compel a nuclear-phobist like me to take them seriously yet try
to convince them to think otherwise, t o help them break out of their
`pro-nuclear brainwashing'.
More concretely, I base my appeal to the unconverted audience on
three arguments and take them in turn : 1) Weaponisation - especially
nuclear - is the wrongest route to ensuring human security; 2) In
uncritically endorsing the `logic' behind nuclear tes ts then and the
nuclear doctrine now, we are playing the role of powerless subjects in the
euphemistic guise of citizenship; 3) Unlike many crises that are `more or
less' in nature, damages that can be potentially caused by nuclear
conflicts are of the ki nd of `either or'; they contain the germs of total
annihilation, leading to points of no return.
Is there any military answer to social and economic malaise that
plague large parts of the country? Does the bomb guarantee our security
when it is understood in the sense of providing a safety net for all? A
pragmatic look at the fragile existence of th e mass of the Indian
population would suggest the exact opposite. Excessive preoccupation with
military security in fact undermines human security; that is to say, it
appallingly detracts our attention from issues related to development,
environment and h uman rights. When the daily existence of a large number
of people in the country is subject to calamitous conditions caused by
economic, social and political constraints, to speak of bomb-bred security
indeed seems to be a bombastic claim! What is more, t he risks and costs
of weaponisation are bound to be socialized, though in a very regressive
way. In other words, an oversized military budget (a likely fallout of the
ongoing trend of armament) and an attendant decline in social sector
spending are bound to create new social and economic risks and
vulnerabilities for precisely those people - for example, workers,
agricultural labourers, slum-dwellers, in short, the mass of the people -
who have had nothing to do with the decision to go nuclear. They are t he
ones who will end up bearing disproportionately the costs and grievously
suffering from the effects (such as social expenditure cuts, sanctions and
so on) of acquiring the `exotic nuclear endowment'.
It is indeed ironical that in the current national and
international climate of cost-consciousness we often hear a clamour for
rolling back or even dismantling the state in various sectors of
activities; yet the same state is expected to be hyperactive i n the task
of expanding nuclear and other weapons! Let the state take the lead in
proliferating the `public bad' of huge military arsenals, its absolute
inertia and sloth in providing fundamental `public goods' to citizens
notwithstanding! The military bu dget indeed appears to be a sacred cow,
supplying much-needed subsidies to the military-industrial complex, while
vociferous advocates of fiscal adjustment selectively train their guns at
soft targets like education or health care spending. The message is clear
and simple : austerity in public spending and `free market' are for the
poor whereas the welfare state is for the rich who will take shelter under
the wings of generous defence expenditure.
Have the weaponisation proponents amongst us noticed this role
reversal of the state, while celebrating the nation's newly acquired
nuclear prowess or endorsing the recently published nuclear doctrine which
appears to `call for a robust nuclear force'? U nfortunately not and the
reason for this is not far to seek. Recall that the decision to conduct
nuclear tests was taken in the most undemocratic fashion under tight
security and control without even the full cabinet knowledge, let alone
public discussion s. We, the people - entrusted with sovereign power
according to the preamble of our Constitution - have not been expected to
participate in the decision making process on a matter as serious as this;
we have been relieved of the responsibility of citizens hip; spared the
trouble of debating and deciding about the developmental priorities of our
poor nation and the desired budgetary allocations across sectors; have
been told and accepted in turn that power is defined as domination and war
capability and not as empowerment and human capability.
Simply put, we have embraced the model of citizens as subjects,
who remain at the margin of agenda-setting and decision-making, yet are
happy, docile and proud of the national military prowess. We are strongly
discouraged, penalized, or disregarded when we try to assert our rights of
citizenship; the ongoing political and electoral drama of
coalition-breaking and coalition-making at the centre to the utter
disregard for popular mandates is a case in point. Yet we are encouraged
to ungrudgingly consume, n ot to question or debate, the official `logic'
of empowerment through armament. This consumer orientation to citizenship
is a step towards the marginalization of people, towards denying them some
influence over their affairs as citizens. To quote Noam Cho msky's
observation made in a different but related context, "The Public are to be
observers, not participants, to be consumers of ideology as well as
products." We are the uninformed, subject `citizenry' - the riffraff -
flaunting an unexamined faith in the special interests and ambitions of
the political, scientific and bureaucratic elite, cleverly camouflaged as
the national interest. So much for our well thought-out and informed
endorsement of nuclear and arms proliferation!
One may argue that on an issue as `vital and serious' as national
security, decisions should be left to `experts' alone and kept away from
the public. But in a deliberative democracy voters are expected to
participate and deliberate on serious issues and not simply vote; norms
such as participation and accountability are indeed the bedrock of
democracy. So the examination of pros and cons of `security' issues may be
conducted by experts, but they are then required to present their views
and results for c itizens and elected leaders to consider in the context
of country's overall social, economic and political objectives.
To be sure, people do not speak in a single voice; neither can we
assert that deliberation is always the only or the best way to arrive at a
political decision. But it is precisely because the weaponisation issue at
hand has wide-ranging ramifications fo r the public that citizens should
have the opportunity for debating the question on its merits; their
accountable representatives should justify their views and decisions by
giving `persuadable' reasons; such collective engagement with the
underlying reas onings of divergent views is a vital source of the
legitimacy of collective decisions. In the case of the `nuclear' question,
it is precisely the denial of such a scope for public debate and dialogue
that has rendered the country's citizens into subjects, into consumers
rather than producers of ideas.
Admittedly, the recently published nuclear doctrine prepared by
the National Security Advisory Board is a draft document aimed at
generating wider public discussions. In principle, therefore, there is
some scope for citizens to deliberate on the country' s future nuclear,
policy, practice and posture. But keeping in mind how rhetoric translates
into reality, two important issues merit attention here. First, if earlier
there were `security' reasons that compelled the concerned authorities to
be `secretive' about the nuclear tests, now there are political and
`electoral' reasons to make the document public, that is to say, to tap
into our `Kargil euphoria' for the vindication of a pro-nuclear posture.
Second, moving beyond the logic of the timing of publication and
coming to the specifics of the doctrine, it is being said that the
document, with its focus on `effective credible minimum deterrence' on
theourse. There soon followed eight more bursts of flak, right up to our
altitude, but by
this time we were too far to the left.

We flew southward down the channel and at 11:33 crossed the coastline and
headed straight for Nagasaki about a hundred miles to the west. Here again
we circled until we found an opening in the clouds. It was 12:01 and the
goal of our mission had arrived.

We heard the pre-arranged signal on our radio, put on our ARC welder's
glasses and watched tensely the maneuverings of the strike ship about half
a mile in front of us.

"There she goes!" someone said. Out of the belly of the Artiste what looked
like a black object came downward.

Captain Bock swung around to get out of range, but even though we were
turning away in the opposite direction, and despite the fact that it was
broad daylight in our cabin, all of us became aware of a giant flash that
broke through the dark barrier of our ARC welder's lenses and flooded our
cabin with an intense light.

We removed our in our country? But we have tolerated such abject human
conditions for full fifty years of our independent existence, despite pious
policy rhetorics to do
otherwis e. More distressingly, no corrupt practices on the part of the
elite, no pilferage of public funds, no flagrant violations of public
duties (e.g., the Gaisal rail accident) have been `deterred' on account of
their unacceptably deleterious consequences for the well-being of the poor
and the disfavoured.
When persistent damages to the lives of `sovereign' people have
been routinely and infinitely tolerated by the governing classes of our
country as well as those of our neighbouring nuclear `adversary', is it
reasonable to expect that jingoistic nuclear b ehaviour of vested
interests on either side of the LOC will be deterred by human costs it
entails? Do we, the people, matter in the calculus of `unacceptable
damage'? Our heritage of deprivation, our social policy failures and our
citizenship records do n ot quite tell us so.
Recent debates on the notion of unacceptable damage concentrate
mainly on strategic and geo-political considerations, to the relative
neglect of `illfare' which continues to threaten, through times of war and
peace, the lives of large segments of the peo ple. In the face of such
chronic insensitivity on the part of the political leadership to human
security issues, we need to be wary as to whether we, the people, and our
day-to-day vulnerabilities will be factored in to the damage assessment of
the powers that be.
Reclaiming our sovereignty as the people of a democratic nation
is, however, not an impossible task. Indeed, when policy making is
embedded in consultative and transparent processes, democracy offers a way
of rescuing governments that have fallen under t he sway of vested
interests. As Churchill once said, `Democracy is the worst form of
government except for all the others.' The real challenge, therefore, is
to encourage the initiatives of the citizens; to harness the power of
public opinion and action s uch that governments become responsive and
accountable to the will of the majority and make real difference to the
quality of people's lives.
Fortunately, informed public debates have been taking place during
the last year in different corners of the country, critically reviewing
the `merits' of the decision to go nuclear. Out of the nuanced and
well-documented evidence that are being presente d in these discourses,
what comes out in resounding notes is the unmistakable and plain
understanding that we have only one earth to save and live in. The
destructive capacity of a nuclear conflict is so catastrophic, complete
and final that it cannot be measured on a scale of `more or less'; it is a
judgment call of `either or'; `preserve or perish'; there are no two ways
about it. To take liberty with Gandhi, an eye for an eye - the so-called
mutual assured destruction - will indeed make the whole world blind and a
`radiated ruin'. It is, therefore, futile to endorse a position of the
limited use of low-yield nuclear weapons. There is no alternative to
developing an absolute nuclear phobia; to admitting that it is an utter
prejudice to take pride in nuclear possessions, low-yield or high-yield.
Why
is this prejudice still so prominent in our minds? I take a shorthand to
address this profound issue by quoting economist Paul Krugman, `Bad ideas
flourish because they are in the interest of powerful groups. ' We, the
people, need to see through this trickery. The rest is much easier.
We would like to conclude this note on a self-policing tone; that
is to say, while making a strong case for nuclear disarmament and
abolition, we are willing to concede that many concerns vis-a-vis the
de-weaponisation path still endure. More concretely, the cautionary views
and nagging doubts about the viability of the de-weaponisation path, that
are now being expressed in some quarters in the light of the recent NATO
bombings in Yugoslavia, cannot be left unaddressed; to do so would be
unconvincing to those with whom we disagree on the issue of weaponisation.
A `realist', for example, would argue that in a uni-polar world with an
overly militarized `rogue superpower', it is a compulsion to arm and even
go nuclear in order to protect people's sovereignty and territorial
integrity.
A proponent of disarmament and peace will have to address this
issue squarely; correlatively she has to relentlessly search for an
alternative to armament which at once engenders peace and protects
sovereignty and the right to self-determination of the people in the
third world against the military aggrandizement of the `nuclear-rich'
countries. This is not an easy task; but neither is it impenetrable, we
hope.
Saner voices for global peace will have to converge to raise a
clamour for the wholesale disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons -
both locally and globally, both in developed and developing countries. The
challenge before a nuclear-phobist is, ther efore, to suggest a feasible
way of resolving the alleged tension between ensuring global peace on the
one hand and local freedom on the other in a highly militarized
geo-political situation. There is surely no magical solution; but the
alleged trade-off, we claim, is not so tight either.
One may also point out that in this age of MNC-dominated
globalization, countries, especially the poorer ones, are vulnerable not
just to military threats but more frequently to economic insecurities and
predicaments. These political-economy arguments, h ighlighting the
iniquitous nature of the world economic order, have to be factored in for
a even-handed treatment of the question of global peace. To be sure, these
concerns are not new; they have indeed continued to hold a grip on the
imagination of nati on-states since the Second World War. But one thing
has become transparent to peace proponents over time, i.e., the `solution'
to these entrenched problems has to be sought in `political' and not in
`military' terms; a `rule of International Law' administ ered by a
supra-national global government is the only viable tool for both ensuring
peace on the earth as well as taming the extant military and economic
hegemons. To that end, debates, discussions and public action have to be
on in order to find out, f or example, how we can embolden the currently
atrophied United Nations organizations, how we can revive the moribund
non-alignment movement and how we can educate people worldwide about the
misleading nature of the `deterrence' argument. Hence the appeal for a
fuller play of all the standard democratic practices - debates,
deliberations, organizations and protests - for a saner collective wisdom
to emerge.

(The author of the above paper is based at the Madras Institute of
Development Studies, in Chennai, India)