http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/dec/25/ca122501van1.htm
 http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/dec/25/ca122501van2.htm
 http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/dec/25/ca122501van3.htm


The December 13 attack on Parliament has been used by both India and
Pakistan to justify nuclearisation amid frightening rhetoric about
annihilating the other. Achin Vanaik breaks the myths, and analyses
the miscalculations, propagated by the very cream of Indian defence
analysts (as told to Shamya Dasgupta)


New Delhi, December 25

The atmosphere on both sides of the Indo-Pak border at the moment is
very disturbing. What we see right now is a strange rationalisation
and justification of India's nuclearisation by the likes of Brahma
Chellaney. Both sides are talking about annihilating each other -
India is saying that if it comes to war, we will be able to annihilate
Pakistan. Is that some sort of consolation?

In 1998, when India went nuclear, defence experts across the board
called it a harbinger of security for both countries. They said that
it would be good for Indo-Pak relations. Two years down, we see all
those claims refuted, and how! The question that I want to ask is: why
were all these great defence experts unanimous in their view, and why
were they unanimously wrong? At that time, India named China as the
reason for its nuclearisation - ever since, it's been amply proved
that Pakistan was the main cause.
...

... What could easily be forgotten in all this, of course, is the
Kashmir problem. Kashmir has been reduced to a problem of
terrorism. The fact that the people of the area are now alienated from
both sides finds no mention in discourse on the Kashmir problem. The
actual assessment of Kashmir is that it is not a problem caused by
Pakistan. The troubled waters of Kashmir were the brainchild of Indian
politicians. Pakistani politicians are merely fishing in those waters.

Now this is a different picture from the pretentious nonsense I heard
Arun Jaitely speaking the other day. He said, "Since 1989, the only
reason we have had this problem in Kashmir is because of Pakistani
terrorism."

I'll just give you some figures about Kashmir:

How many Indian soldiers, armed forces, personnel of various kind,
paramilitary troops, etc are there in Kashmir? Do you have any idea?
About half a million. That includes auxiliary troops and everything.

What is the population of Kashmir? Roundabout six million.

This is among the heaviest, if not the heaviest, concentration of
armed personnel to civilians anywhere in the world.

What is the combined strength of the main militant groups in Kashmir?
According to official figures, it is between four and six thousand.

You have 5,00,000 troops to try and cope with 6,000 militants?

How many people have died in Kashmir? The official figure in 1996 was
45,000. It has been six years since, and the figure has surely
doubled. And, the official figures underestimate the actual number by
a long way. It must have been around 60,000 in 1996 itself.

Let us say a sixth of this is security personnel of India. That takes
out 10,000 from 60,000, and you have 50,000 left. Let us assume that
of this 50,000, Pakistani terrorists were responsible for most
killings, though without official figures it would be wrong to assume
that. Let's say they killed 70 per cent of this 50,000. That still
leaves you with some 10,000 that were killed by Indian forces. The
facts speak for themselves. No one is speaking for the freedom of the
people of Kashmir here, are they?

Let me finish this with a small discussion. There were seven
predictions that were made in 1998, by each and everyone of the
members of what you can call the Nuclear Strategic Community of
India. Everyone from Subramanian to Brahma Chellaney to Raja Mohan to
Bharat Karnad to J N Dixit to everyone actually made one or more of
the seven predictions.

The first one was: both India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons is a
good thing because through the wondrous workings of nuclear
deterrence, the security of both countries will be enhanced.

The second prediction: both India and Pakistan will achieve some
amount of regional stability. And since there will be harmony between
India and Pakistan, the chances of conventional warfare will also be
greatly reduced. Incidentally, if you think that Lahore was one great
gesture, India is the country that brought nuclear weapons into the
region. Having done this, it wanted to justify doing that by pushing
the Lahore process. It was only to justify and legitimise the
nuclearisation of both the countries.

Third: since the chances of conventional warfare will be reduced, we
can actually reduce our expenditure on conventional arms.

The fourth: we are going to have only a minimum nuclear deterrent.

Five: there is going to be no competitive nuclear arms race between
India and Pakistan. The funny thing is that defence experts continue
to say this.

Sixth: India's strategic autonomy is going to be enhanced as a result
of nuclear weapons, particularly from the US.

Lastly: with nuclearisation, India will have greater bargaining power
in nudging the whole world towards nuclear disarmament.

So we have seven predictions, made by the who's who among India's
defence experts. What actually happened subsequently?

...
[See  http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2001/dec/ca122501van3.htm
for why the defence experts were wrong.]