[sacw] S A A N Post | 29 Aug. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
South Asians Against Nukes Post
29 August 2000
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

#1. Anti Nuke convention in Delhi (Nov.00) + its Concept paper
#2. An interview with Indian Anti Nuclear Activist Praful Bidwai
#3. Pakistan to train troops for nuclear strikes

_____________________

#1.

Dear friends

Since India's reprehensible entry into the nuclear weapons club which
violated New Delhi's own principled stance against nuclear weapons for 50
years, many groups around the country have been working steadily to halt
and reverse this. They have marched in the streets, campaigned in the
media, lobbied in political and expert circles, with whatever resources
they have been able to lay their hands on.

The post-1998 adventurism in South Asia, culminating in the Kargil war last
year, brings home the urgency of making this fight against nuclear weapons
more effective. For doing this, some of us, as anti-nuclear weapons groups
and people, have met over the past few months. A large number of groups,
over 20 of which met in Nagpur at the end of March, and then again in
Nagpur on July 30, plan to hold a broad-based National Convention of all
those who are actively participating in and contributing to the Indian
struggle against nuclear weapons.

The proposed National Convention is going to be held in New Delhi between
November 11 and 13, 2000. A local committee of organisations and people in
Delhi has already been set up and has begun putting the infrastructure and
resources together. A draft paper forming the basis of the discussions at
the proposed Convention and sponsored by a host of organisations and
individuals has also been written by the people involved in the preparatory
meetings through long discussions, and is appended to this letter. The
hope is that the National Convention would clarify views, build solidarity,
provide information, and help plan unified or coordinated plans and
strategies as well as making a public point about the strength of the
movement in the country.

None of this is going to succeed unless the people who are really concerned
about nuclear weapons stand up to be counted in the Convention. We
therefore appeal to you to participate in the Convention, to publicise it
widely, and to contribute to it financially. All letters for attending as
well as financial contributions can be sent to the address below.

While the appended draft paper is a basis for discussion, the participating
organisations and people are aware that there can be certain differences of
perspective, or disputes over details, or disagreements over precise
formulation. We appeal to all those friends who have such reservations
that, so long as we all believe in the need to eliminate nuclear weapons,
all other issues can be discussed and debated openly and constructively at
the Convention, and we therefore urge them to attend the Convention in such
a spirit of critical and constructive friendship and solidarity. Total
agreement or even substantial agreement with the appended draft is not a
pre-condition for full and effective participation in the proposed and
forthcoming Convention. Without both the criticism and the solidarity, all
efforts would be in vain.

Organisations agreeing with the general spirit of the draft are requested
to add their names to the list of sponsors.

We look forward to hearing of your participation.

In solidarity,

(On Behalf of the National Convention Preparatory Committee)
Achin Vanaik

MIND (Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament)
c/o Delhi Science Forum
B1 Local Shopping Centre, IInd Floor.
J Block, Saket
New Delhi 110017
Tel. nos.6862716/6524323
Fax no. 6862716
email:ctddsf@v...

SPONSORING ORGANISATIONS
Journalists Against Nuclear Weapons (JANW), Chennai
Physicians for Peace, Chennai
Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND), Delhi, Mumbai
Student Christian Movement, Kerala
Indian Social Institute, Delhi
National Alliance for Peoples' Movement (NAPM), Delhi, Lucknow, Nagpur
Centre for Education and Documentation (CED), Bangalore
All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA-Canara Bank), Bangalore
Alternate Lawyers Forum, Bangalore
Bharat Electricals Limited Employees Union, Bangalore
Citizens Against Nuclear Energy, Bangalore
Documentation and Dissemination Centre for Disarmament Information, Bangalo=
re
Federation of Voluntary organisations for Rural Development-Karnataka
Gandhi Peace Centre, Bangalore
General Insurance Employees Union, Bangalore
Indian Scientists Against Nuclear Weapons, Bangalore
International Energy Initiative, Bangalore
Karnataka State Peace and Solidarity Organisation, Bangalore
Manasa, Bangalore
New Entity for Social Action, Bangalore
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties-Karnataka
Pipal Tree, Bangalore
Samvada, Bangalore
Science for Society, Bangalore
Anglo-Indian Guild, Bangalore
Visthar, Bangalore
Bharath Gyan Vigyan Samithi, Bangalore
National Council of Churches in India (NCCI), Nagpur
Youth for Nuclear Disarmament (YND), Delhi
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, Mumbai
Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA), Nagpur
Anumukti, Vedchhi
India Peace Centre, Nagpur
Gandhi Peace Foundation, Delhi
Anti-Nuclear Movement, Nagpur
Wan Kamgar Sanghathna, Nagpur
Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, West Bengal
Greenpeace, India
Saheli, Delhi
Public Interest Research Centre, Delhi
Gene Campaign, Delhi
EKTA (Unity), Mumbai
Indian Scientists Against Nuclear Weapons (ISANW). Chennai
Chhattisgarh Anumukti Manch (CAMM), Chhattisgarh
Indian National Social Action Forum (INSAF)

Draft 1 of Concept Paper for National Convention

A NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT MOVEMENT IN INDIA

India's self-declared entry into the nuclear weapons club in May 1998 when
it conducted five nuclear tests in Pokharan, Rajasthan is ethically
reprehensible, socially, politically and economically ruinous, and deserves
unequivocal condemnation.

1. Why We Must Oppose Nuclear Weapons

1.1. The Moral Dimension: Nuclear weapons are means of mass destruction
regardless of who wields them. They impose horrendous suffering on victims
across generations. They can destroy the ecosystem. The sheer scale and
character of the devastation they can cause makes them a profound and
distinctive evil. For this and other reasons their possession, use, or
threat of use is immoral.

1.2. Betraying The Past: Until 1998, the government of India consistently
termed nuclear weapons evil and was in the forefront of initiatives to
eliminate them. This consistent ethical position was abandoned in 1998,
without any tenable explanation for Pokhran II and the weaponisation in its
aftermath. India [followed by Pakistan] has thus joined the club of
nuclear weapons states (NWSs) which pursue discriminatory and hegemonic
agendas. .

1.3. The Nuclear Danger: Nuclear weapons do not provide 'national security'
but increase insecurity and paranoia. Time and again since the Nuclear Age
began in 1945, we have come to the brink of a nuclear exchange either by
design, miscalculation or accident. If the world continues to have such
weapons, it is very likely that they will be used sometime, someplace. In
this respect, the India-Pakistan nuclear face-off is an obvious danger,
even if not the only one. The myth that nuclear weapons provide security
was debunked by the Kargil conflict. Nuclearization and arms-racing arouses
greater mutual suspicions and fears.

1.4. A Diversion From Real Needs: Nuclear arming is unnecessary and
wasteful. Since a 'minimum credible nuclear deterrent' is not a fixed
position but moves ever upwards depending on the changing technologies and
preparations of other 'nuclear rivals', building such a deterrent over the
next decade can (according to the estimates of the nuclear lobby itself)
cost anything between Rs. 70,000 crores and Rs. 700,000 crores. Alternative
uses of such resources would eliminate illiteracy, dramatically improve
health-care as well as provide a basic social security net for all Indians.
The economic cost of a spiralling arms race will be ruinous and the
marginalized will be pushed further to the periphery.

1.5. Undermining Democracy, Destroying the Environment: A nuclear weapons
regime creates unacceptable levels of secrecy and unaccountability. When
this regime is linked to, and reinforced by, a communal, chauvinist and
militaristic ideology, as is the case in India, then it can only greatly
worsen matters. To protect the health and safety of employees, local
residents and prevent degradation of the local environment there must be
proper and full transparency with public accountability regarding the
activities of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).

1.6. A Race Against Time: Early nuclear disarmament is a must. It is an
essential link in the struggle for an egalitarian, socially just society
and world. As such the struggle for nuclear disarmament must connect with
global, regional, national and local concerns.

2. Building the Movement

2.1. A Unified Focus: An anti-nuclear weapons focus brings together groups
that share this basic platform but may have differences of perception on
related and important issues: namely how best to handle the tensions
between arms control/abolition, between nuclear weapons/energy, between
nuclear disarmament/general disarmament and peace. These tensions can
neither be hidden nor ignored but must be creatively explored and managed
through building a united movement AGAINST nuclear weapons which is also
simultaneously linked to the various movements FOR social justice and
development. Such an anti-nuclear disarmament movement must encourage
maximum freedom of discussion and spaces for multiple forms of co-operation
between like-minded groups and individuals, but also continuously deepen
and strengthen overall unity on an agreed minimum programme and platform.

2.2. A Global Perspective: It is essential to keep in mind the global
dimension of an Indian/South Asian struggle against nuclear weapons.
Therefore, connections with global movements are essential. The culpability
of the NWSs, especially (but not solely) of the US, must be recognised and
every effort made to push the NWSs towards rapid and total global
disarmament.

2.3. A Broad Front: The national coalition that composes the anti-nuclear
weapons movement will include groups that work primarily on nuclear
weapons-related issues, groups that work on nuclear cycle-related issues,
as well as a large majority of groups that work on broader or allied areas
of social justice and empowerment which see nuclear weapons as one more
target of their struggle. These sensibilities and perspectives need to be
respected and harnessed creatively.

2.4. Maintaining Dialogue: It is essential for such a movement to maintain
dialogue with the followers of all political parties, and with the leaders
of those parties and political groups which have opposed India's nuclear
weaponization. This dialogue must focus on the need for nuclear
disarmament at the national, regional and global levels and for stopping
all nuclear tests and weaponization. An ongoing and ever deeper dialogue
with the general public is, of course, vital.

2.5. Unity And Diversity: The movement must steadily evolve consensus
positions on the core issue of nuclear weapons and the immediately related
matters of nuclear safety and transparency. Beyond this the movement must
forge links with the broader issues of social justice, development and
'security'. The national network of organisations must itself be of a
correspondingly loose, democratic and open type. It would also be very
useful for the National Convention to generate a national-level
co-ordinating group of some kind.

2.6. Stock Taking And Co-ordination: The National Convention must take
careful stock of the various resources and capacities collectively
available in avenues such as advocacy, propaganda, school and college
programmes, cultural displays, creating pressure through public agitation
and mobilisation, interactions with opinion-shaping constituencies like the
public media. This will enable groups to plan and carry out co-ordinated
activities at local, regional and national levels.

2.7. An Action Plan: It would be useful to set up a United Action Plan for
one year at the National Convention to express the broadest unity common on
the nuclear weapons issue, and to make public [perhaps via a press
conference] a declaration representing the broad sense of the anti-nuclear
weapons National Convention [see goals below]. A symbolic public act/event
associated with the holding of the National Convention would help establish
that there is a national anti-nuclear opinion translating into action.

3. Our Common Agenda

3.1 India

To halt and roll back India's nuclear weapons-related preparations and
activity we demand the following measures to be implemented immediately:

No assembly of nuclear weapons, induction and deployment of nuclear weapons=
.
No acquisition and development of nuclear weapons-specific delivery systems
and no missile tests.

Advanced research into nuclear weapons to be halted.
No to explosive testing, subcritical tests, production or acquisition of
weapons-usable fissile materials and tritium.

Complete transparency and independent monitoring of DAE performance and
full public accountability.

Proper compensation and reparation to all victims and their families for
damages done to their health and local environmental conditions by
activities related to all aspects (from uranium mining to reactor
production to waste disposal) of the fuel cycle. All environmental damage
to be fully rectified.

Public accountability of the veracity and efficacy of the freeze.

3.2 Other Nuclear Capable and Nuclear Weapons States

We demand similar immediate measures of nuclear restraint and roll back
from Pakistan and Israel.

All the N-5 countries (USA, Russia, China, Britain, France) must
immediately de-alert fully their nuclear weapons system, make a pledge of
No First Use and stop all research into advanced nuclear weapons. No to all
efforts to construct an anti-ballistic missile system or missile shield.

We demand the rapid, systematic and continuous reduction by the N-5 of
their nuclear weapons down to zero level through unilateral, bilateral and
multilateral commitments and pacts.

We demand that the Indian government go back to being among the
pace-setters in matters of global nuclear disarmament.

We want a nuclear weapons free world and support all genuine efforts in
pursuit of this goal.

______

#2.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/12inter.htm
Rediff on the Net
12 August 2000

Rediff Interview/ Praful Bidwai

'ARE NUCLEAR WEAPONS GOING TO HELP US COUNTER LOW-LEVEL INSURGENCY IN
KASHMIR?'

May 1998: India has just carried out nuclear tests in the desert of
Rajasthan and many Indians appear to have gone ballistic in delight. The
media is agog with this frenzy of patriotism. But there were other
voices that were drowned out in the orgy of self-congratulations, of
statements questioning the need for plunging India into an arms race
that it can ill-afford at this stage.

One of the strongest critics of India's nuclear tests (and a strong
advocate for nuclear disarmament) is Praful Bidwai, who recently
co-authored a book with Achin Vanaik, South Asia on a Short Fuse:
Nuclear Politics and the Future of Disarmament.

Bidwai, who quit IIT-Bombay in his final year, is one of India's
bestknown columnists. He is also a scholar at the Fellow Transnational
Institute, Amsterdam, where he works on North-South issues and Third
World debt and poverty. And today, he is as well-known as an activist in
the field of nuclear disarmament and is part of the Movement in India
for Nuclear Disarmament.

At present, Bidwai is busy organising the first National Convention on
Nuclear Disarmament. In an exclusive interview to rediff.com Associate
Editor Amberish K Diwanji he explains the need for the convention and
his reasons for seeking nuclear disarmament.

Why are you holding this convention?

This convention will be held in New Delhi from November 11 to 13. The
background is that there are at least 40 cities in India where there
have been sustained anti-nuclear activities. There have been symposia,
seminars, discussions on nuclear weapons and the wisdom, or lack of it,
in relying on nuclear weapons for security. There has been public action
demanding disarmament, reduction in military expenditure, a return to
the right development priorities in this country. Now, most of these
groups have been doing these activities discretely with no coordination
with each other.

There are also been groups based on professional affiliations such as
Journalists for Peace, Physicians for Peace, Physicists for Disarmament,
and so on. All these groups feel the urgent need to have a
national-level organisation and network and such a network must have a
national profile and identity because these are issues on which policies
are being made at the national level. There is not much that you can do
at the regional level.

It is with a view to setting up a national network and to trigger off a
national campaign of a very concerted kind that the proposed convention
is to be held. Now, the demand for the convention came from all these
different groups. In fact, over a 100 groups have made this request.
Some of us, like Vanaik and I, were lucky enough to travel while we were
writing our book. We went around to a number of Indian cities, partly to
hold discussions on the book and partly to generate interest on nuclear
disarmament and meet groups that are active in different cities.

These groups were keen to hold a national-level meeting, and we had two
preparatory meetings in Nagpur, including one on July 30, where 100 of
us met. There we decided on the concept, scope and agenda of the
convention.

Will there be delegates from abroad, especially Pakistan?

We are anticipating about 500 to 700 people, about 90 per cent from
different parts of India, representing about 200 organisations. But we
are expecting people from the South Asian region, and, of course,
Pakistan in particular. We have had a lot of contact with Pakistani
groups, thanks to e-mail, thanks to citizen-to-citizen contacts over the
last few years. We have been in steady touch and done joint programmes.

For example, last year on Hiroshima Day (August 6), many members of the
public wore white ribbons in Pakistan and India. The Pakistan Peace
Coalition held a convention in February 1999 and 30 people from India
were invited to this convention which had 500 delegates. I was one of
those invited from India. So we do have close connections with the
disarmament groups in Pakistan.

We will also have some observers from the international peace movement;
activists from Japan, US, Germany, some for international peace
organisations like Greenpeace, Peace Bureau and so on. There will also
be participants from the UK's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, one of
the oldest peace movements. You know the peace sign -- a circle and a
triangle -- is the symbol of CND. So we hope to get a substantial
number.

What do you hope to achieve from the convention?

In India we have three kinds of groups involved. First, there are the
groups for whom nuclear disarmament is a principle agenda, which include
the one that I am with -- MIND. This was set up first in 1983 in Bombay
and re-established after the nuclear tests in 1998 in Delhi. There are
groups that identify with MIND and want to affiliate with MIND. And then
there are the groups like Physicians for Peace for whom also the main
agenda is nuclear disarmament.

The second type of groups are those for whom the priority is principally
human rights, displacement of people, development issues, gender and
caste issues, Dalit rights, environmental protection and so on. All of
them see nuclear armament as an emerging concern that impinges on what
they are doing. If India makes the bomb, it is going to take money away
from development issues. And as India plunges into a nuclear arms race
not just with Pakistan but also with China, it will have repercussions
for Indian polity and ideology.

For instance, you have the emergence of a national security obsession
and syndrome which justifies mindless forms of reliance on nuclear
weapons and which justifies anything in the name of national security.
These groups are concerned that the diversion of resources and emergence
of a macho form of nationalism will impact on them and their concerns.

The third set of people who are keen to get involved see mass education
and advocacy of peace and reconciliation as their main agenda. These are
teachers and people who feel we haven't learnt enough from Hiroshima,
who feel we don't teach our children values of peace and conciliation,
don't talk about the importance of ethics and morality. We have a whole
generation growing up which thinks that war is a normal way of life,
that strife and conflict are part of human nature. They are concerned
with reversing some of these views.

So all three groups are keen to set up a national network which will
have coordination committee which will try to organise activities in
many areas -- public education, advocacy and lobbying. The convention
will produce a permanent organisation which will meet periodically.

You plan to set up an organisation with a secretariat?

To the extent possible with our 'very' limited resources. In fact, one
reason for us not being able to hold this convention earlier was because
the resources seemed daunting and even now it is going to be very
difficult to raise the lakhs or rupees we need for this convention, but
a strong effort is on to get the money.

But we do want to set up a lasting structure to respond to what is
happening, so that if there some statement from, say, the government on
the nuclear question, we would like to provide an alternative analysis
or a critique. We also want to try and educate members of Parliament who
know so little about nuclear issues, educate people in public life and
act in the area of disarmament.

Nuclear activists, both in India and Pakistan, and even the world, are
seen as idealists who have little impact in the real world? Do you see
yourselves having any influence over government policy?

Many of these groups have historically started as very, very small
initiatives. For example, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in
Britain was started in the 1950s by people like Bertrand Russell. You
had only a handful of people -- 10 or 20 -- holding marches. Yet it grew
so that the CND had more members than the entire Labour Party and its
influence was so strong that it was able to persuade Labour to adopt a
completely unilateral disarmament agenda. This was the influence that
CND came to acquire in the 1970s and 1980s.

That apart, in India I think our numbers have grown. In the beginning it
seemed we were very small, but so were the strongest supporters of
nuclear weapons. You saw all these people celebrating on television, but
that was a small minority. The bulk of the supporters were more
ambivalent: They thought it was an act of defiance against the global
unequal nuclear order; some thought India had made a point about able to
test but was not going to make the weapons and some thought India and
Pakistan were going to reach some sort of a stable, mature relationship
after the tests.

Now, none of that has happened. India and Pakistan, instead of becoming
more mature, became more aggressive and within a year, went to war.
Kargil was one of the bloodiest conflicts between India and Pakistan,
and the only war between two nuclear powers.

Again, those who thought that India was defying the international
nuclear order, which is undoubtedly discriminatory, saw that India has
actually joined it on the side of the discriminators. It became a second
or third rate member of the nuclear club and people saw through it!

Thirdly, I think people realise that nuclear weapons lead to an arms
race, and that is happening. Look at the hardening of the Indian
posture. First we said we are going to be just a small nuclear power but
a year ago, the government published the draft nuclear doctrine which
talks of a very ambitious, open-ended, triadic arsenal with deployments
on the ground, in the air and at sea, with no limits on the technology.

You now have a new emerging arms race between India and China that is
being the inevitable consequence of India's nuclearisation. So what you
have now is a complete falsification of some of the romantic assumptions
and that is why some of the people who initially supported the nuclear
tests are now very critical of the nuclear weapons programme. I mean, we
had a 28 per cent increase in one year in the defence budget after the
Kargil War...

But that was after the war...

Yes, but even after the China war, we never had that kind of an
increase! Today, defence expenditure is 50 per cent more than what is
spent on primary education. Are you going to get security through
military spending or are you going to get real, human, genuine security
through education, jobs, social cohesion? And I think people are
questioning that. But I think our numbers are growing.

How many numbers do you put it at?

It is difficult but in a good survey last year, 72.9 per cent of the
Indians polled in 13 cities said they do not want India to make or use
nuclear weapons, even in emergencies. This is a large number and we have
seen that nuclear weapons have not been a political tool. Just after the
nuclear tests, the BJP lost in the elections in the states (in November
1998), even though the BJP made a referendum of the tests. It was
Pokharan versus pyaaz (onions) and Pokharan did not win. In Rajasthan,
it is possible that the BJP lost because of what happened in Pokharan.

India has Pakistan on one side and all the troubles in Kashmir, it has
China on the other side, which has shown no interest in disarmament. In
such a world, what would you say that India should do?

First of all, I am not denying the problems with Pakistan in Kashmir and
so on, but how do nuclear weapons help us resolve the problems? Are
nuclear weapons going to help us counter low-level insurgency in
Kashmir? On the contrary, nuclear weapons have helped Pakistan in that
we had decisive conventional weapons superiority over Pakistan, which we
lost after the nuclear tests.

Nuclear weapons have aggravated the situation and it is correct for us
in India to say that the South Asian region is the most dangerous in the
world today. Chances of a nuclear war breaking out today -- whether by
design or accident, intended or unintended -- is much higher today in
South Asia than during the entire Cold War. Let us not forget that there
is no strategic distance between India and Pakistan; we live cheek by
jowl. Missile time between our cities is three to eight minutes and has
seen a hot-cold war for the past 50 years.

What about China?

I think China and India reached a very major breakthrough in the 1990s.
In 1993 and 1996, we signed two major treaties -- on maintaining peace
and tranquility along the border and on confidence-building measures --
which would allow demilitarisation of up to 100,000 troops. After this,
China dropped plans for a particular missiles which could have targetted
peninsular India.

Now, we have reversed that. We are getting into a serious and hostile
arms race with China at the nuclear level. And don't forget, China is 30
years ahead as a nuclear and missile power and three times bigger than
India as an economic power. It would be suicidal and economically ruin
us to get into that race. We need not have provoked China, but we
needled and named China.

Let us go back to the fundamental question that India argued for 50
years. Nuclear weapons do not provide security but an illusion of it;
they do not prevent defeat even by non-nuclear weapons states. Look at
America's defeat by Vietnam and the Soviet Union's defeat by
Afghanistan! The Soviet Union ultimately collapsed.

Thus these are bogus notions of power; they do not provide security.
India learnt and preached that lesson for 50 years, one which it has now
forgotten.

What about the fact that some countries continue with to arm themselves,
such as the US and its National Missile Defence?

Yes, but we don't have to imitate them in their horrible historical
blunders. The fact is that nuclear weapons are not compatible with
international law and countries possessing nuclear arms are rogue
states. That is the judgement of the International Court of Justice in
1996. Because there are criminals in the world does not mean you should
do that; you do not enhance your power or prestige by doing so.

Now that we have gone nuclear, what would you suggest next?

First, completely halt all nuclear and missile programmes. In fact,
those attending the convention have agreed that nuclear weapons must not
be made, inducted into the armed forces or deployed. We must freeze our
programmes.

Second, we must launch a national effort at reversing our programme to
return to a pre-1998 status. And along with we must return to the
international disarmament agenda with some spirit and enthusiasm.
Imagine the impact if India and Pakistan were to say that we are
suspending our nuclear weapons programme if you five nuclear powers get
down to fulfilling your obligations under NPT and CTBT.

Are they doing that?

No, I am saying the moral and political impact will be tremendous.
Today, the vast majority of states despise nuclear weapons and have
opted out of it, including powers like Japan and Germany. It is only a
handful of states who want nuclear weapons and who have to give them up.
With our peace legacy of Buddha, Gandhi, and Nehru, we have a stature
that we can use for nuclear disarmament.

What about Pakistan?

Pakistan is the most reluctant nuclear power to have disclosed its
cards. It is a reactive power to whatever India does. Because it knows
that in the long run, it can't compete with India. They have said they
will not deploy if India does not. And if India agrees to sign the CTBT,
it will follow suit. They have even said we don't care about principles,
we will do what India does.

______

#3.

[Received through: Frederick Noronha]

Pakistan to train troops for nuclear strikes

from India Abroad News Service

Islamabad, July 8 - The Pakistani Army is to conduct an exercise to test
how its forces should be deployed to carry out nuclear strikes to inflict
"maximum punishment" on the "enemy".

The army has prepared an extensive programme, including troop deployment
tests "in view of the enemy's striking capability and in case of a decision
of a nuclear strike by Pakistan," NNI news agency reported.

The requirements of the post-nuclear tests environment and limited war
concepts were discussed in detail at a two-day conference of Corps
Commanders, which concluded here yesterday.

Military ruler Pervez Musharraf, who chaired the conference, said: "By the
grace of Allah Almighty, Pakistan armed forces enjoy a qualitative edge
over the adversary, which must be maintained at all costs."

He stressed the need for intensive peacetime training of troops, ensuring
maximum participation of the officers and men and said he would personally
attend the war games of each corps. "The war games will be followed by
integrated field exercises conducted in a realistic environment," an
official statement said.

Sources said Pakistan needs to test two new concepts -- post-nuclear
environment and limited war concepts. Professionals say that to test a new
concept, an army needs to conduct an exercise in the same way former Army
chief, Gen. Aslam Beg, tested the concept of 'offensive defence'.

When Beg undertook that exercise, Zarb-e-Momin, in 1989, Indian and other
foreign military attaches based in Islamabad were invited to observe it in
order to confirm its non-hostile intent, just as India had done when it
conducted "Operation Brasstacks" in 1990.

The sources said in the post-nuclear tests environment in South Asia, India
had conducted an exercise in Rajasthan while Pakistan was yet to do so.
They said following the war games and field exercises at each corps level,
Pakistan would test the concept of post-nuclear environment by conducting
an exercise in which the forces would be dispersed in view of the enemy's
striking capability and in case Islamabad deciding on a nuclear strike.

A retired senior military officer said following the Kargil conflict
Pakistan also needed to test the 'limited war concept'.