[sacw] [ACT] saanp #2 (21 March 00)

Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr
Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:20:21 +0100


South Asians Against Nukes Post #2.
21 March 2000
______________________
#1. ABC News Program "The Dark Horizon: India, Pakistan, and the Bomb"
#2. Bombay Bombay : The well known study is now available on the Web
#3. India: Bangalore Platform against Nuclear Weapons
______________________

#1.

Peter Jennings reports on the struggles between India and Pakistan in
"The Dark Horizon: India, Pakistan and the Bomb," Monday, March 20, at
10 p.m. ET, on ABC News.

An Enduring Conflict

International Pressure Is Necessary to Facilitate India-Pakistan Peace
ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings, center, speaks with Indian Brig. Gen. R.S.
Malan, left, along the front line between India and Pakistan in the
mountains of Kashmir, where there is still almost daily firing between
the two armies. (ABCNEWS.com)

By Peter Jennings

K A S H M I R, March 20 - President Clinton's visit to South Asia
couldn't come at a better, or worse, time. India and Pakistan
desperately need attention.
The tension over the disputed state of Kashmir has brought the
relationship to its worst state in 30 years.
Although it is unlikely that the president will find the answer to
ending the cycle of violence that has plagued these two nations, if he
achieves nothing more than focusing the world's attention on the growing
danger, it will be a service. The only thing that seems likely to help
avert another war is the sustained interest of the global community, and
most importantly the United States.
I've already covered one Indo-Pak war in 1971, and I still follow
developments there fairly closely. But visiting the subcontinent
recently was a chilling experience. While India and Pakistan have rarely
made front-page news in the last two years they have been on a dangerous
and unbroken course toward war.
I found officials on both sides privately resigned to the
inevitability of another war, one they realize could easily be nuclear.
In spite of that, the Indian Defense Minister told me flatly that the
United States has no role to play.
That wouldn't be quite so disturbing if India and Pakistan had any
inclination to solve problems peacefully on their own. Public
pronouncements aside, meaningful dialogue has been conspicuously lacking
for the 53 years of shared history.
Even the most liberal, optimistic Indians and Pakistanis turn
suddenly conservative, even belligerent when it comes to discussing
Kashmir. The struggle over the Himalayan province has already been the
cause of two full-scale wars, and very nearly a third one last year.
The Fight for Kashmir
Kashmir is a wound that is simply bleeding the life out of both
countries. Military expenditures to wage the low-intensity war over
Kashmir increase every year. India recently announced a 28 percent
increase in military spending while its national literacy rate hovers
around 50 percent. Pakistan now spends nearly 75 percent of its entire
national budget on a combination of defense and debt servicing.
Kashmir is such a minefield in diplomatic relations between the
United States and the two countries that the Clinton administration
avoids making any statements about Kashmir other than that they would
like to see the issue solved.
Indian and Pakistani politicians have used Kashmir as a rallying
point for so long that compromise would be political suicide. India's
ruling BJP government used a hard line against Pakistan to enhance its
nationalist image during the recent election. Pakistan's General
Musharraf is clearly banking on the Kashmir fight to unify his country,
appease the Muslim militants who threaten him, and galvanize his divided
army. It is a strategy that will make compromise even harder.
Totally lost in the midst of all this are the Kashmiris themselves.
Even conservative estimates say that tens of thousands have died over
the last decade of violence. The constant arguments between India and
Pakistan about who is responsible for the violence have little appeal to
the Kashmiris. They beg for international intervention. They ask why
they don't deserve the global attention received by the East Timorese,
or Kosovars.

The Threat of Nuclear War
It no longer requires much imagination to foresee a situation where
nuclear weapons could be used by India or Pakistan. Although both
countries had usable nuclear weapons long before they tested them in
March of 1998, their attitudes about them seem to have changed. On the
front lines in Kashmir, Indian officers talked to me matter-of-factly
about low-yield devices and tactical strikes.
Anyone who spends time in the subcontinent quickly realizes that the
"it-could-never-happen-here" attitude that Americans now have about
nuclear war is not shared by Indians and Pakistanis. They talk about
nuclear holocaust the way we did at the height of the Cold War.
Actually, they are re-living a part of American history. The Indian
Foreign Minister sounds like Ronald Reagan or Robert MacNamara when he
uses words like "deterrence" or "survivability." This is America's Cold
War vocabulary.

America's Role in South Asia
Americans have many reasons to care about what happens in South Asia.
Not least of which is that the U.S. shares some responsibility for the
problems. American policy in the region has been erratic at best and has
left a legacy of deep mistrust.
Pakistanis feel betrayed by the United States withdrawal of military
aid following the Soviet retreat in Afghanistan. The Muslim militants
and plentiful weapons left behind in 1989 have had a corrosive effect on
Pakistan itself. They look to the Taliban as a model for Pakistan's
future. Indians, on the other hand, are still bitter that the United
States took sides with military dictatorships in Pakistan for so many
decades, rather than democratically elected governments in India.
The Clinton administration, to its credit, has been relatively
single minded in its policy toward both countries. But it has been a
policy focused on keeping the nuclear genie in the bottle, and it
failed. President Clinton is now trying to recast a policy that
recognizes both India's rising economic power, and Pakistan's struggle
with the forces of militant Islam. This is a tall order.
The President will be helped tremendously if the American public
starts to pay attention. Public attention to South Asia will mean
political attention. Only constant pressure from the international
community will compel the two sides to make the hard choices.
As we look at India and Pakistan we ought to remember that the
problems of South Asia are precisely the problems we will be forced to
face in the coming century: terrorism, religious militancy, movements
for local independence, and the spread of nuclear weapons.

Peter Jennings, anchor of ABCNEWS' World News Tonight, is in India
reporting on President Clinton's visit to the region.
------------------

#2.

'Bombing Bombay ?: Effects of Nuclear Weapons and a case study of a
hypothetical explosion' a report by MV Ramana (well known Indian Nuclear
Scientist & peace activist) is now available at:
http://www.ippnw.org/bombay.pdf

------------------

#3.

A Bangalore Platform against Nuclear Weaponisation

Dear Friend,

adventure may have indeed been a dangerous and politically
motivated ploy.

lieve that creation of a critical mass of public opinion can
realistically take up the agenda of rolling back this weaponisation
programme, as has happened in many other countries of the world.

meeting on the 14th of March to discuss objectives, modalities and
agenda. Prof. H. Narasimhaiah the well known physicist,
educationist and peace campaigner has agreed to be present in
the meeting and share his views with us.

Do join us as we recommit ourselves to the continued struggle
against the forces of militarisation and nuclearisation.

Venue - National College, Basavanagudi.
Date - 14th of March, Tuesday.
Time - 5.30 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

S.K. Biswas
Shubha Chacko