Musings on the much talked about Indo-U.S. Nuclear deal currently in the works & President Bush’s 3-day visit to India
With memories of the Sikh massacre, by the Indian Army during President Clinton’s March 2000 visit fresh in their mind, Sikh villagers in Chittisinghpura, in Indian-held Kashmir, call for protection
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - President George W. Bush will be in India today (March 1, 2006) to push ties, the centerpiece of which is a nuclear cooperation agreement under which India’s rulers want the U.S. Congress, and the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, to subsidize their country’s growing illegal nuclear stockpile – as well as its economy – by disregarding the concerns of India’s immediate neighbors and sub-nations (captive in the Indian map since 1947 like the 25 million strong Sikh nation) and ignoring New Delhi’s over three decades long contempt of the International Nuclear non-proliferation regime – the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The world’s 25 million strong Sikh nation (3 million in the diaspora and 22 million captive in India) sandwiched between nuclear-armed India & Pakistan, is apprehensive, about President Bush’s visit to India, for another reason. Last time a U.S. President (President Bill Clinton) visited India, in March 2000, thirty five innocent Sikhs were stood up against a wall and executed Al Capone-style by a platoon of uniformed Indian Army soldiers in a remote village, Chittisinghpura, in Indian-held part of disputed Kashmir, to ‘shock & awe’ the American President and his entourage. Every Sikh today is apprehensive that the fascist elements among the Brahmin-caste-dominated ruling elite of India – there are too many jingoists among them – may have plans to repeat that 2000 bloody episode to ‘impress’ President George Bush as well. The Indian Express newspaper of February 27, 2006, to its credit, carries a Chittisinghpura-datelined report by one Riyaz Wani, appropriately headlined, “In Chittisinghpura, guns & closed doors – Memories of massacre during Clinton’s visit fresh in their mind villagers call for protection,” in which the correspondent gives words to the apprehensions and fears of the Sikhs, when he writes that, “The name of the US President fills this picturesque Sikh village in the shadow of Pahalgam with a sense of deja` vu and dread. About six years ago—on March 20, 2000—35 of its residents were massacred by unidentified gunmen during former US President Bill Clinton’s visit to India.” To read the full report in the Indian Express newspaper please click at the following link: www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88672
A recent presciently editorial in one of the world’s oldest, most prestigious and widely-read weekly news magazine, the London-based ECONOMIST, has cautioned the United States when it wrote recently (February 23, 2006, issue) that, “Mr Bush must also take care to ensure that friendship with India does not damage his close ties to Pakistan, another American ally the president intends to visit on this trip. Pakistan is infinitely more fragile than India, but right now of much greater strategic significance to America. It is central to the fight against the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. On top of that, it has an awful record of selling (by unauthorized freelancers, claims its government) nuclear-weapons technology on the open market. Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, has lately shown signs of flexibility towards his country’s long and dangerous dispute with India over Kashmir. But both countries need to show flexibility on Kashmir, and Mr. Bush must take care not to tilt so far India’s way that the Indians feel under no pressure to make concessions of their own. That will merely weaken Mr. Musharraf and enfeeble a valuable American ally…”
The February 23, 2006, ECONOMIST editorial goes on to say that, “ Sending the wrong signal on nuclear weapons is not the only potential pitfall in America’s romance with India. Mr. Bush should also be wary of sending the wrong signal about America’s intentions towards China. Too often when Indian-American relations are discussed in Washington, the notion is invoked that India might somehow turn out to be a “counterweight” to China. Yet it is hard to see, in practical terms, what sort of counterweight India could actually be. On the contrary, that sort of talk is liable only to reinforce China’s fear that America’s grand strategic design is to encircle it and block its rise as a great power. That fear has already been strengthened by America’s recent transfer of some of its military might from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The United States should not base its Asian strategy on that sort of balance-of-power diplomacy… Instead of encircling China, Mr. Bush should concentrate on putting the American relationship with it on the right footing: deeper engagement, coupled with a determination to make China play by the rules. Yet Mr. Bush’s approach to this rising superpower has sometimes seemed almost casual: Hu Jintao, China’s president, had been made to wait far too long for his state visit to Washington even before Hurricane Katrina forced him to cancel a visit last August. And Mr. Bush has not worked hard enough at home to make the free-trade case against the protectionist hawks gunning for China (though, to be fair to him, he has not given them much comfort either).” The above was excerpted from an editorial comment in the Economist of February 23, 2006. End of quote.
The Chinese negative reaction to India-U.S. nuclear moves (mentioned in the Economist editorial above) came promptly in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper, Renmin Ribao, when it wrote that, “This (Indo-U.S. nuclear deal) would be a hard blow on America’s leading role in the global proliferation prevention system as well as the system itself. This will bring about a series of negative impacts… Now that the United States buys another country in with nuclear technologies in defiance of international treaties, other nuclear suppliers also have their own partners of interest, (read Pakistan maybe Iran) as well as good reasons to copy what the U.S. did.” End of quote.
Similarly, Pakistan’s negative reaction, as predicted by the ECONOMIST, to Indo-U.S. nuclear moves also came swiftly, a la the Chinese, last week, on Friday, February 24, 2006, at a well-attended seminar (“The Critical Engagement: Pakistan and US Relations”) sponsored by the Harvard University Asia Centre in the city of Cambridge in Massachusetts. Answering questions the Sikh-friendly Chairman of the Pakistani Senate Foreign affairs Committee, Secretary General of the ruling Muslim League party and keynote speaker at the seminar, Senator S. Mushahid Hussain, (who came on a one day visit to the U.S. to attend the seminar) said that, any Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was a violation of the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the proposed Indo-US nuclear accord, India would get access to civilian nuclear technology to develop its energy sector, which it has been denied since conducting nuclear tests (in 1974 & 1998) and refusing to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Test-ban treaty. Senator Mushahid Hussain, an intelligent, articulate and well-read Pakistani politician, also said that, “double standards were being practiced vis-a-vis Muslim Pakistan. No body raised any objection when Indian scientists were helping Iran with its nuclear program some years ago. Nor was there any uproar from US lawmakers when Israel was building its nuclear arsenal.” The Chairman of the Pakistani Senate Foreign Relations Committee Mr. Mushahid Hussain also lauded the United States for helping the victims of Pakistan’s October 2005 earthquake which help he said was much appreciated and the gesture reflected the fact that the Americans were “warm, generous and giving…”
At the same Harvard University seminar the Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Munir Akram, a competent professional diplomat, in answer to questions said that Pakistan’s nuclear forces were now under a ‘tight’ command and control system, and there was excellent cooperation on nuclear proliferation issues with United States. About doubts expressed by some speakers over Pakistan’s nuclear activities and Pakistani nuclear scientist Mr. A.Q. Khan, Ambassador Munir Akram noted that the focus was not on what Pakistan has done, but what is undone. He said that, “Dr. A. Q. Khan was a national hero: Pakistan wanted a weapon after India took the nuclear route in 1974 and he gave his country the capability to produce atomic arms. Enough action had been taken against him. Pakistan would not allow him to be interviewed by any one. No foreign government would be given direct access to Dr. Khan who knew all of Pakistan’s nuclear secrets. But Pakistan was prepared to take questions to him and the information thus obtained would be shared with the international community.” For reports on the Harvard University seminar in the Pakistani media please click on the following two links:- www.dawn.com/2006/02/27/top9.htm and www.nation.com.pk/daily/feb-2006/26/international10.php
The suave Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram called for maintaining the principle of parity between India and Pakistan in the nuclear field. “The proposed Indo-U.S. nuclear accord,” the Pakistani Ambassador said, “eroded the principle of parity between India and Pakistan. It would enable India to get its hand on sophisticated atomic technology with all its consequences. Such a situation would destabilize Pakistan, forcing it to produce fissile material to refine its weapon systems.” The Ambassador also warned that, “In case of a conventional attack against Pakistan, the Pakistani military would be forced to respond with missiles and unconventional arms (read nuclear arms) to defend the country’s territorial integrity.” The Pakistani Ambassador minced no words, nor was he bluffing!
Indeed, we Sikhs got the above message loud and clear ten days ago, (about Pakistan Army’s plans to use nuclear weapons and missiles to defend the integrity of their fatherland, in case of an attack under the new much talked about offensive Indian military doctrine) on February 20, 2006. On that day we read in the Daily Times newspaper of Lahore (Pakistan) that the Pakistan Army had bared its nuclear fangs by testing, the already tested, 200 Kilometer range nuclear capable Hatf-II /Abdali missile, on Feb. 19, 2006, in preference to testing the longer range (and heavier payload) Shaheen, Ghaznawi, Ghori or other nuclear capable missiles in Pakistan’s arsenal. (www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C20%5Cstory_20-2-2006_pg7_6) As this Abdali missile’s 200-kilometer range falls short of the obvious targets, like Chandimandir-based Western Command or the new Jaipur-based South Western Command headquarters of the Indian Army, one has to think about the Pakistani motivation for this saber rattling, at this point in time. Is this Pakistani nuclear missile test meant to be a wake up call for the Sikhs for whom there is a great deal of goodwill among the common people in Pakistan specially after the Sikh nation’s spontaneous, selfless and generous gestures of support for the victims of Pakistan’s October 2005 earthquake?
Before answering the above question about the ‘wake up call’ it will be worthwhile to look at some facts about India’s obscene nuclear ambitions since the days of Prime minister Indira Gandhi the evil daughter of (the founder of dynastic rule in India) Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. The major argument by Indian jingoists, nay ‘mad bombers’, in New Delhi, has been, of course, that nuclear weapons are needed to guarantee India’s security. But this argument was irreparably damaged within days after India’s mid-May 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear tests by Pakistan’s reaction of carrying out tit-for-tat nuclear tests in Chagai on May 28 and 30, 1998. In the seventeen heady days after the Indian nuclear tests, and before the Pakistani response, sections of India’s political leadership, the scientific leadership in the atomic energy and defence research sectors and other assorted hawks clearly thought that India had gained a strategic edge over Pakistan. While the political leadership of the country (L. K. Advani was one of them strutting around in disputed Kashmir asking for a Pakistani surrender) warned Pakistan of the ‘changed geopolitical realities in the subcontinent’, the scientific establishment crowed about how the tests had guaranteed security to the people of India. After the surprise tit for tat May 28, 1998, Pakistani nuclear tests in Chagai, it became obvious that India’s Pokhran-II nuclear tests had not conferred any strategic advantage on Delhi what so ever but had, on the contrary, helped Pakistan attain strategic parity with India. Much more than that, Pakistan’s covert nuclear doctrine of protecting its nuclear assets with ‘empty’ threats that ‘no matter who attacks its nuclear installations, no matter whose fault it is (Israel’s, France’s, UK’s, Afghanistan’s, Iran’s, India’s, Sri Lanka’s, anybody’s fault) India will get shot, came out in the open and became a very believable nuclear doctrine which Delhi will ignore at its own peril.
Some readers may remember that in the first week of May 1998 this column published an expose` about Indian covert activity near Pokharan in India’s Rajasthan state – later the site of India’s nuclear tests. Our report on the nuclear plans of India’s ‘mad bombers’ of the Hindu fundamentalist fascist BJP ruling coalition in Delhi, not only earned this column, Khalistan Calling, an honorable mention in a two-column story in the New York Times, of May 16, 1998, written by Ms. Elaine Sciolino (headlined, ”Scooped on Tests, U.S. scorns a Sikh Journal”) but also later on, the episode was favorably discussed on page two of an excellent book, “Reshaping National Intelligence for an Age of Information,” by Gregory F. Treverton, former Vice-Chair of the National Intelligence Council, Senior Consultant at Rand Director of Studies at the Pacific Council on International Policy. This book (published in 2001 by Cambridge University Press – ISBN 0-521 58096 X hardback) was recommended as a ‘must-read’ by the former U.S. National Security Advisor under President Carter, Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski and four other former Directors of the CIA – James Schlesinger, Robert M. Gates, James Woolsey and Admiral Bob Inman.
Having assumed that we have some ‘nose for news’ about India’s Chanakiyan activities in South Asia we think that this February 19, 2006, Pakistan missile test was indeed meant as a ‘wakeup’ call for the people of the Sikh Homeland. Pakistani ‘hawks’ who are generally friendly to the Sikhs, are telling us that the Sikh Homeland will lose everything, everything, in any nuclear war, if any kind of attack is launched from the soil of Indian Punjab on a weaker /smaller / narrower Pakistan by a stronger / bigger / deeper India. The Feb 19, 2006, Abdali missile test by Pakistan has indeed reminded us Sikhs that the jingoist rulers, nay ‘mad bombers’ in Delhi must be stopped. These jingoists consider the 25 million Sikhs as expendable as cannon fodder, and will have no hesitation to sacrifice the Sikh homeland, its holy shrines (in fact the Sikh civilization itself) by making Punjab into a battlefield in their mad quest to acquire the status of a hegemonic nuclear regional power in South Asia. This is something which nuclear-armed Pakistan will resist to the death. The sixty million dollar question therefore pops up, as to what must the Sikhs do? The answer is simple. Sikhs can start by opposing, ‘tooth and nail’, the proposed Indo-U.S. nuclear accord which is against Sikh national interests. It is a matter of survival for the Sikhs.
Another thing we Sikhs must do is to invigorate our struggle for an independent, democratic buffer state of Khalistan stretching from the Jumna River on the East to the Pakistan border in the West, to Kashmir in the North and China on the North East. We MUST do that if we want to survive. The emergence of Khalistan - a fertile river-water-rich bridge of commerce between South and Central Asia - will not only bring unprecedented prosperity to the Sikh Homeland, but will also usher in peace and happiness to South Asia, by permanently separating the two perennially warring nuclear-armed, dirt-poor, over-populated states of India and Pakistan who are going nowhere. Khalistanis must therefore, also strive for a twenty mile strip of land running East, and parallel, to the present Indo/Pakistan border right down to the historical Sikh shrine, at Lakhpat, a seaport on the Rann of Kutch, and on to the Arabian Sea twenty miles away.