The SCO Summit: A Growing Coalition of ‘Frenemies’?

Published in WION website on June 9, 2017

To its Western detractors, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is an emergent anti-NATO coalition, “an OPEC with bombs” and a military and economic alliance to be reckoned with.

To its Eastern proponents and supporters, the SCO is a military and economic coalition of mostly Central Asian countries (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), which after the expected inclusion of India and Pakistan as full members at the grouping’s annual summit in Astana today, would make it represent half the world’s population and almost 20 percent of its GDP.

Founded in 2001, the alliance’s three stated aims are to fight terrorism, extremism and separatism. In addition, members of the group also engage in economic and scientific cooperation.

But all eyes today, along with a few raised eyebrows, will be fixed on the admission of India and Pakistan as full member states into the SCO. Although chances of a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Pakistan premier at the summit appear bleak, there are reports that a head-to-head between Mr Modi and the Chinese President Xi Jinping could be the highlight.  India is understandably less sanguine about its role in the coalition, thanks to the growing clout of some of its ‘frenemies’ in the bloc.

One of the stumbling blocks which India will likely face is the SCO member states’ expected endorsement of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which connects it to Europe and Africa and covers nearly 70 countries through a series of trade pacts. Delhi believes the BRI violates its sovereignty, particularly the proposed China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which runs through Pak-occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan region (both an integral part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir). It should be noted that India did not participate in the BRI summit held in Beijing in mid-May, which drew 30 heads of state.

Again, there are differing views over terrorism and territoriality between India on the one hand, as well as China and Pakistan on the other. Beijing still considers Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh a disputed territory, remains adamant on preventing Masood Azhar’s naming in the UN sanctions list and obstructs India’s entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Therefore, some Indian strategists contend that becoming part of the SCO and the so-called consensus-driven ‘Shanghai spirit’, could potentially imperil India’s vital interests.

There are also concerns that India-Pakistan disputes at the forum could render the bloc flaccid (SAARC serves as the precedent) and for this reason SCO member states have already instructed the two new entrants to keep their differences aside in the spirit of the SCO Charter, which prohibits the raising of bilateral issues. Thus, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying has reportedly said: “Hope India and Pakistan strictly follow the charter of the SCO and the idea of good neighbourliness to uphold the SCO spirit, improve their relations and inject new impetus into the development of the SCO.”

Some Indian experts fear that the strong Chinese and now growing Russian ties with Pakistan will not allow them to take the Islamic Republic to task over its increased support to cross-border terrorism and separatism in Jammu and Kashmir, but instead may use the SCO to force India into negotiating with Pakistan on Kashmir in the context of ‘good-neighborliness’.

In spite of these issues, India would benefit from greater connectivity and influence with Central Asian countries, and this development is likely to facilitate a Free Trade Agreement with European Economic Union (EEU), enabling an easy flow of raw materials, goods, finance and technology.

Again, the opening of the International South Transport Corridor (INSTC) — the 7,000 km long network of ship, rail and road route for moving goods connecting India, Russia, Iran, Europe and Central Asia — and the proposed Chabahar project in Iran would get a boost by India’s joining the coalition.

Even more important, India might gain from SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS). In March this year, the anti-terror charter of SCO was bolstered when officials of special services of member states approved a draft convention on combating extremism and terrorism at a meeting in Tashkent. Again, the participation in SCO’s counter-terror exercises and military drills with member countries could prove useful for Indian forces. However, it is difficult to foresee India and Pakistani forces participating in bilateral anti-terror exercises under the SCO ambit. India could also benefit from an SCO ‘Energy Club’, particularly when Iran would likely join the grouping at a later date.

The SCO could also provide an opportunity to India to establish stronger ties with other Central Asian countries, for example with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, to circumvent the influence of China-Pakistan alignment that could impede India’s direct access to Eurasia.

Some Western observers believe that Russia is trying to take advantage of India-China rivalry by getting India inducted into the SCO. It is contended that Moscow is wary of Beijing’s growing clout within the bloc and in a region that Russia views as its backyard. Some observers see signs of Russian unease with growing Chinese investment in Central Asia and reduced economic dependence of the region on the Russian largesse. It is in this context that Russia is said to have objected to any free trade agreement among the SCO members and wants the entry of India — with its large economic mite — to mitigate growing Chinese influence.

Thus, the inclusion of new members into the SCO could make the organization stronger by virtue of more resources (people and aggregate GDP), but could also make it more vulnerable given the divergence of security and economic interests among its member states. 

ET TU, BRUTE? AFTER SHIA IRAN, THE SUNNI STAB AT WAHHABISM

Published in WION website on October 14, 2016

They say when it rains, it pours. But no one could have predicted this new storm for the Wahhabi state of Saudi Arabia. 

The country's list of recent woes is pretty impressive; the US support for the regime has dwindled visibly, there have been consistent ISIS attacks, Iran continues to be a threat, and to add to all these, there is an economic recession as well as the waxing of ‘Shia Crescent’ in the neighbourhood. But the real bolt has come from the ‘Honourable University of Al-Azhar,’ whose scholars recently 'excluded' Salafi-Wahhabism from Sunni Islam. Historically speaking, the Salafi movement of the 1960s-70s gradually subsumed the Wahabi ideology to the effect that adherents of Wahhabism today call themselves Salafis, even though they practise a more puritan form of Islam than mainstream Salafi Muslims.

Established in Cairo in 975 AD, Al-Azhar is one of the world’s oldest extant universities and Sunni Islam’s most prestigious academic institution. The fatawa (edicts) of its clerics are held in high esteem, even if not observed to the letter, by most Sunnis around the world. On August 25-27, a delegation of eminent Al-Azhar scholars attended a conference held in Grozny (Chechnya) titled ‘Who are the Sunnis’. At the conference, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb categorically renounced all forms of extremist and terrorist actions, saying that such deeds were incompatible with the teachings of Sunni Islam. 

Reportedly, in the same conference, the Shaikh also excluded the Salafi-Wahhabi movement from the sect of Ahlus Sunna (the Sunnis).

Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb categorically renounced all forms of extremist and terrorist actions, saying that such deeds were incompatible with the teachings of Sunni Islam. 

The same omission was repeated in the final statement of the conference that limited the definition of Sunnis to 'Asharis, Maturidis by beliefs, followers of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Malaki, Shafai and Hanbali), and followers of pure Sufism in terms of ethics and chastity'. Conspicuously absent from this definition were names and terminologies associated with the Salafi-Wahhabi movement. 

The statement also refrained from mentioning any Saudi religious institutions. It restricted to consecrating only traditional non-Salafi Sunni academic institutions, namely Al-Azhar, The University of Al-Quaraouiyine (Fez, Morocco), Al-Zaytoonah University (Tunisia), Hadramaut University (Yemen) and some Russian universities. It is to be noted here that majority of Sunni Muslims in India belong to the Ashari and Maturidi systems of belief, including Deobandis and Barelvis, which were consecrated at the conference.

In their joint statement, the participants observed that the conference represented 'an important and necessary turning point to correct the sharp and dangerous deviation that has affected the concept of the Sunni community following attempts by extremists to seize and monopolise this title.' Scholars from over 100 countries including India, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Britain, etc. participated in the conference and were united in their stand against terrorism.

Scholars from over 100 countries including India, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Britain, etc. participated in the conference and were united in their stand against terrorism.

Speaking to the Middle East media website ‘Al-Monitor’, Prof Ahmad Karima of Al-Azhar University accused the Salafi-Wahhabi scholars of promoting the idea that they are the only real Sunnis to the exclusion of Ashari theology, which is adopted by Al-Azhar. He said, 'They (the Salafi-Wahhabis) even went further, deeming us non-believers in the Al-Masira Encyclopedia of Contemporary Religions, Sects and Parties (published by the Saudi World Assembly of Muslim Youth) … The Chechen conference was held to put things back in order, Sunnis are Asharis,' he stressed. 

In another interview, Ahmad Karima added, 'If the world is looking forward to uproot terrorism, it has to stand up against Wahhabism because they are the root of all sedition and conflict.'

The Wahhabi intellectuals and Saudi officials were predictably enraged by the final statement of the conference.  Saudi journalist Muhammad Al-Shaikh reportedly tweeted: 'Tayeb’s participation in the Grozny conference … will force us to change our behavior with Egypt. Our country is more important and Sisi’s Egypt shall go to hell.'

It is noteworthy that this internal Sunni feud came at a time when Saudi officials and their religious scholars were engaged in a bitter takfiri tirade with their Iranian counterparts on the eve of the Haj pilgrimage.  After Riyadh and Tehran failed to agree on terms governing the Hajj this year, Iranian President Ali Khamenei accused Saudi Arabia of 'murdering' Iranian pilgrims in last year’s Hajj stampede. He also called Saudis 'puny Satans who trembled in fear of … the Great Satan (the US).' In response, the Saudi Grand Mufti said: 'We have to understand that they (Iranians) are not Muslims. They are ‘Majus’ (in reference to Zoroastrians, the pre-Islamic religious community of Iran), and their enmity to Muslims – specifically to Sunni community – goes way back.'

However, it is ironic that the message of the Saudi Grand Mufti did not resonate with the non-Salafi Sunni community, which in turn started questioning the religious credibility of the Salafi-Wahhabi movement itself. As noted Middle East expert Juan R. Cole put it: 'Ironically, in the 18th century Wahhabis were the ones denouncing the Sunnis and attacking the Sunni Ottoman Empire. Through the centuries, the Wahhabis have gradually asserted that they are Sunnis themselves. But they did not start out that way.'

In fact, a nascent Sunni backlash against Salafi-Wahhabism seems to be gradually spreading across the world now; the non-Wahhabis Sunnis find relations with the Shiite community more acceptable, than with ‘ghair-muqallid’ (non-traditionalist) Wahhabis. For instance, Shias and Sunnis offered the second consecutive joint Eid Namaz at Imambara Shah Najaf at Lucknow in India recently. 

a nascent Sunni backlash against Salafi-Wahhabism seems to be gradually spreading across the world now

This was followed by an Eid Milan ceremony that invited Sikh and Hindu religious leaders. Meanwhile, there has been growing unease within the ruling Malaysian party UMNO over the rise of Salafi-Wahhabist extremism within its ranks. The secretary of the UMNO Veterans Association recently warned that a federal minister was using government facilities to spread the Salafi-Wahhabi ideology. This sense of alarm against the rise of Salafi-Wahhabism in Malaysia, which has until now allowed its spread unhindered, is a new development. Clearly, Sunni Muslims are becoming wary of being associated with 'Salafi-Wahhabi radicalism' that has spawned major jihadist organisations, like Al-Qaeda and the ISIS.

Apprehensive of the growing trend, several Islamic scholars and secular commentators stress that it would be wrong to directly equate Salafi-Wahhabi ideology with extremism or terrorism. They aver that majority of Wahhabis (over 80 per cent), who prefer to call themselves Salafis these days, are doctrinally apolitical and peace-loving; the jihadist strain only affects a small minority in that community. 

several Islamic scholars and secular commentators stress that it would be wrong to directly equate Salafi-Wahhabi ideology with extremism or terrorism.

The branding of Salafi-Wahhabis as non-Sunnis, non-Muslims or Muslim extremists by any community exacerbates religious polarisation leading to further alienation and radicalisation. They also warn against the potential rise of McCarthyism against Salafi-Wahhabi adherents by various societies and governments. Therefore, the solution to extremism and violence solely lies in religious tolerance and communal harmony, irrespective of any ethnic, racial or religious differences across the board.

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO AL-AQSA

BY ADIL RASHEED (Khaleej Times Editorial Page Issues) / 24 April 2008

The Majestic Qubbat Al-Sakhra Mosque or 'Dome of the Rock

ALMOST every night a loud rumble shakes their tenements. Palestinians living close to Occupied Jerusalem's Al Haram Al Shareef compound complain of being frequently awakened in the wee hours by the distinctive noise of a mechanised dig.

Many of the residents are convinced that slowly and surely Israelis in the area are burrowing their way toward the holy compound in order to weaken the foundations of its two Holy Mosques.

However, the international community rather ingenuously accepts Israeli explanations. For some strange reason, the issue has remained buried under the pile of other intractable problems fomenting Palestinian-Israeli hostilities. Even the news of this dig barely makes a blip on the radar of the world's free media.

Still, Palestinian concerns should not be taken lightly. Any untoward fallout of this dig could have enormous, potentially cataclysmic, implications for global peace and security.

Al-Aqsa Mosque is respected by roughly a fifth of mankind, the approximately 1.6 billion Muslims across the globe. To them, Al-Aqsa Mosque is the site of their 'first Qibla,' the second house of prayer established on Earth, and the third holiest Islamic site after the two Holy Mosques at Holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. It was from a rock within the Holy Al-Sakhra Mosque that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had ascended to the heavens. The sanctity of this holy site can only be understood by the profuse allusions to it in the Holy Quran and Hadith.

Al-Haram Al-Shareef lies at the heart of Jerusalem. At its southern end is Al-Aqsa Mosque and at its centre is the celebrated Qubbat Al-Sakhra Mosque or the 'Dome of the Rock.' However, for Muslims everything enclosed within the walled Al-Haram Al-Shareef precinct is sacred and inviolable.

What makes the excavation work, from the Silwan area to the Western wall, near the Al-Aqsa compound more dubious is that nobody, not even any Western journalist, is allowed to inspect the dig. Moreover, it is not the Israeli government but an Israeli settler outfit, the Ir David Foundation, which is financing the dig.

Claimed to be based on a late 19th century British excavation, Israeli diggers assert the quarry has exposed an ancient tunnel that veers close to the mosque complex but does not pass under it. However, many Palestinians believe the real plan behind this excavation is to dig secret tunnels beneath Al-Haram Al-Shareef to weaken the foundations of its sacred shrines.

Palestinian fears are by no means unfounded. They are aware how on August 20, 1929, extremist Jews aided by the British army raided the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque complex and seized control of its western part, including Al-Buraq Wall (now known as the Wailing Wall by the Jews). In a span of 15 days, 338 Palestinians are said to have been killed in their effort to thwart Zionist plans.

Then in 1967, the Israeli army entered Haram Al-Shareef in tanks. Thereafter, the then chief rabbi of the Israeli Army, General Shlomo Goren, entered the mosque courtyard and pointed toward a spot, which he said should be the site for the construction of the Third Jewish Temple. He clearly stated that he had planned a project for establishing the temple in the place of the Holy Al-Aqsa and Al-Sakhra Mosques.

On August 21, 1969, an extremist by the name of Dr Dennis Michael Rohan set the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque on fire. The flames caused extensive damage to the mosque, especially its historic 'minbar' (pulpit). However, Rohan was absolved of all charges on grounds of insanity.

Then on April 11, 1981, an American-born Israeli soldier named Alan Harry Goodman was able to enter Al-Aqsa Mosque, after which he started firing randomly. Two Palestinians were killed in the firing.

The Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque

In 1968-69, Israel carried out excavations close to Al-Aqsa Mosque and 'opened' two tunnels that penetrate beneath it in the area of the Hulda and Single gates. Then from 1970 to 1988, Israeli authorities dug up a tunnel passing northwards from the Western wall of the holy mosque. In doing so, they used mechanical excavators, which caused cracks and structurally weakened the buildings.

In 1996, the digging of an archaeological tunnel near the sacred compound again triggered unrest. Sixty-one Arabs and 15 Israeli soldiers were killed in clashes. On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon visited the Al-Aqsa compound, which provoked the Second Intifada. In the ensuing bloodshed about 6,000 Palestinians were martyred.

Then again in February 2007, Israeli forces demolished the historic road leading to Bab Al-Maghreba, for the building of a huge bridge in its place, to provide easy access for Israeli security forces and Jewish extremists groups to the courtyard of the holy site. These incidents clearly demonstrate the reasons why Muslims are apprehensive of Israeli intentions of carrying out excavations near Al-Haram Al-Shareef.

However, the current threat to the holy compound seems to be the greatest and most organised of its kind. Apart from their aforementioned dig, they are also building a ring of new settlements in the area, which Palestinians say will bolster their claim to the city of Jerusalem in any future peace deal. Last month, Israel invited tenders for 750 new housing units in this area of East Jerusalem.

However, despite all the archeological digs, authentic remains of ancient Jewish temples have not been found at the site. In fact, Israeli excavators have been baffled by the failure of the excavations in exhuming the so-called "Jewish era" of Jerusalem.

Therefore, far from establishing any Jewish legitimacy over the holy Islamic sites, present excavation work near Al-Haram Al-Shareef would merely weaken the foundations of the sacred mosques in the holy compound. In doing so, Israel is not only aggravating its existing tensions with the Muslim world, it is also risking the disastrous consequences of any untoward development caused by the dig.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2008/April/opinion_April89.xml&section=opinion&col= 

FREEDOM TO ABUSE?

Is it Politically Correct to Abuse Islam?

BY AFIA KHAN (Khaleej Times Editorial) 1 April 2008:

ONCE again the ‘freedom of expression’ bug has smitten the West. Though Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, feminists and even Blacks have managed to inoculate themselves against its abuse, with the Western media becoming more mindful of their sensitivities, Muslims frequently find themselves exposed to its most virulent strain.

Somehow, it has become politically correct and morally commendable in the West to subject Muslims and their religion to the most vulgar and inane insults in the name of this freedom. However, the several simultaneous and sudden attacks by Western media and politicians on Muslims in recent days seem to be as synchronised as they are insidious.

So when the far-right Dutch politician Geerth Wilders, who openly claims to be a Mossad-affiliate, makes an incendiary anti-Islam film and launches it on the Internet, the self-styled champions of freedom of expression come out to defend it, although the movie purportedly seeks to ban a religious book.

Even more curious is the fact that the Netherlands, far from taking any action against Wilders, asks the EU to hold a high-level summit in anticipation of the film sparking violence in the region. For its part, the EU also reportedly assures the Dutch government of supporting it in the cause of ‘freedom of expression.’

Similarly, it is difficult to understand how 17 Danish newspapers recently decided to simultaneously republish highly offensive anti-Islam cartoons, despite having known that these cartoons had sparked worldwide protests and uproar when they were first published by the Jylland Posten newspaper two years ago.

Like Netherlands, the Danish government has also showed its aversion to taking any action against the newspapers. In fact it has said it will itself stand guard over ‘freedom of expression.’

It would be only pertinent to raise the question that if Denmark is such a passionate advocate of freedom of expression, why does it have punishments written down in its penal code against libel and blasphemy. It is important to note that these provisions are not limited to violations against the Christian or Jewish faiths only, but to all people living legally in the country. Thus # 140 of the Danish penal code states:

"Anybody who publicly mocks or insults any in this country legally existing religious community tenets of faith or worship, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 4 months."  The Danish government could have also taken action against newspapers over the publication of the offensive cartoons under other sections of its penal code, such as # 266b that states:

"Whoever publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger circle makes statements or other pronouncement, by which a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

Sec 2. When meting out the punishment it shall be considered an especially aggravating circumstance, if the count has the character of propaganda." However, its is highly unlikely that the Danish government or the EU would heed the plea of the Islamic world, even though Muslims have so far not resorted to any unseemly acts of violence in their protests. In the sam vein, Germany may also lack the political will to prevent the staging of a play based on Salman Rushdie’s novel Satanic Verses in Portsdam on Sunday.

Most Muslims believe that such insults and expressions of hate almost certainly would have been treated differently had they been directed against the Jewish community. Europe has strict laws against anti-Semitism, which no votary of freedom of expression could think of violating.

Even noted academicians who have slightly divergent views on the genocide of the Jews during World War II, either in the manner or the extent described by the current Western scholarship, get the tag of ‘Holocaust denier.’ Over a dozen countries in the world, including all the great votaries of freedom of expression, like France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland, consider a partial disagreement with the official account of the holocaust fit enough to be deemed a criminal offence for which a person can be jailed for years.

David Irving

 David Irving, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, Roger Garaudy, Jean Marie Le Pen, Nick Griffin, Ahmed Rami, Pedro Varela, Carlos Porter, Siegfried Verbeke, Jurgen Graf, Hans Schmidt, Erhard Kemper, Ingrid Weckert, are just some of the scholars, politicians and activists who have been victimised, tried, or jailed for holding differing views on the holocaust than the official historical account. These people should have known the fate of Julius Streicher at the trial of German war criminals at Nuremberg. Streicher, the publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper Der Stürmer, had argued in his defence that he had not killed anyone, but had merely published a newspaper. However, for causing incitement to genocide, Streicher was hanged to death in Nuremberg on 16 October 1946.

Therefore, freedom of expression has almost become the exclusive preserve of Western powers. For example, when religious symbols were recently banned from French public schools mainly to prevent Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in class, an exception was introduced for Jews and Christians that allowed them to wear of crosses and Stars of David. However, in the post-Iraq war scenario the credibility of Western values is eroding rapidly. Even in the US, the so-called trustworthiness of its mainstream media that is virtually owned by four conglomerates has come under severe strain, especially after its role in misleading the country into the Iraq war and their disregard of the 9/11 truth movement. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted in October 2006 found out that 84 per cent of Americans do not think the US government is telling the truth about the 9/11 attacks. An earlier poll conducted by CNN put the number at 89 per cent.

Yet, the mainstream US media does not publish the ‘evidence’ of the alleged cover-up and dismisses members of the 9/11 Truth Movement as loonies. Many members of this movement are noted public figures, scientists, former senior military and government officials, reputed academicians, scholars, TV and radio talk show hosts etc, who have suffered persecution for expressing their views. Therefore, before presenting itself as the proponent of free expression, Western zealots should first take a look at the hollowness of their claims.

For starters, they should understand that the principles of freedom of expression do not extend to hate campaigns, and that it is time to address the offence and not its reaction.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?section=opinion&xfile=data/opinion/2008/april/opinion_april4.xml

Will India Test More Nukes in The Future?

Published in Emirates News newspaper, Op-Ed Page (June 21, 1998)

The Indian nuclear explosions last month were not just a new kind of populist device triggered off by the nationalist BJP party to upset the political applecart of its many coalition partners and the Opposition. The fact is that such programs involve long and sustained preparations and could not have been initiated during the brief tenure of the new government.

The Indian nuclear program has been facing a serious crisis for some time now, as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty (FMCT) are threatening its survival. India has to sign the CTBT by September 24, 1999, without which the treat cannot come into force. This could give India not only a worse label than the ‘spoiler’ it earned from the nuclear powers in 1996, but as per Article XIV of the draft treaty, a conference may decide what measures are to be taken to facilitate the early ‘entry into force’ (EIF) of the treaty.

If India signs the CTBT then it will not be able to conduct (according to Article 1 of the Treaty) “any nuclear test explosion or any other nuclear explosion,” and on the basis of the negotiating record this is understood to include all nuclear explosions with yields above zero, in accordance with US President Bill Clinton’s August 1995 proposals.

Article IV of the verification protocol provides for a tough verification regime which will rest on an International Monitoring System and on-site inspections.

The draft treaty exempts the nuclear powers from conducting sub-critical tests, developing and refining their nuclear weapons through computer simulations and so forth, a technology the threshold nuclear states can develop only after conducting many test explosions.

According to M.R. Srinivasan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India, the CTBT would lead to “freezing technology levels at current capabilities, with additional support base of analysis, theory, computer modeling and so forth.”

So if India wants to be a signatory to the CTBT without becoming a nuclear imbecile, it may have to conduct more tests before September 1999, just as China and France did in 1996. The recent statements by Gauhar Ayub Khan that India may be considering more nuclear experiments and a statement by Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman on June 18 that its moratorium on nuclear tests could be lifted if it was in the national interest to do so suggest that any further nuclear tests in the subcontinent cannot be ruled out.

In a post-Cold War world, neither India nor Pakistan can depend on their erstwhile allies on issues related to defense and therefore will find it very difficult to compromise with their respective nuclear programs.

The parameters of mutual assured destruction (MAD) have undergone a change over the years. The big and cumbersome atomic bombs, capable of destroying large civilian populations, are surviving merely as deterrents. The smaller tritium backed thermonuclear devices, easy to load on to ballistic missiles, capable of hitting strategic military and nuclear sites with limited and effective destructive capability and pinpoint accuracy, will have the edge now in any war-like scenario.

In the words of retired Rear Admiral Raja Menon there is a difference between counter value and counter force nuclear weapons. “The former are inaccurate and have large kilo tonnage, since they can only destroy population centers. The latter are accurate, smaller and target hostile nuclear weapons sites.” But to develop the counter force technology one needs to achieve “non-explosive testing, so that the nuclear arsenal can be upgraded … as the US is doing.”

The Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty (FMCT), negotiations for which will begin soon in Geneva, is meant to prohibit all further production of fissile material (enriched uranium and plutonium) for weapons purposes, or outside safeguards in all countries.

India objects to this draft treaty as it claims “it would in effect disarm the threshold states’” while leaving nuclear weapons on states with huge stocks of weapons grade fissile material. The FMCT, Indian experts states, can prove even worse for the Indian nuclear program. In the words of strategic affairs analyst Savita Dutt, the FMCT could serve the purpose of “capping, rolling back and eventually eliminating” India’s nuclear weapons capability, while leaving huge stockpiles of the nuclear weapons states in place.

Therefore, both the CTBT and the FMCT could hold India back from rising to the level of conducting sub-critical tests and building sufficient data for computer simulation soon and may relegate it to be a minor nuclear power with only a few crude atomic bombs.

The date of ratification for the CTBT may literally become the deadline for its nuclear program. The question is whether India has the requisite technology and more importantly the political will to go for an ambitious nuclear program? Will it be able to weather the adverse consequences at the international levels? Can it keep the Buddha smiling, even if public opinion changes and the demand for nuclear-backed power increases.

My Essay Won First Prize in CSR in 1992

My essay won First Prize in CSR in 1992