| 07 February 2004 | Saturday | 15 Zilhaj 1424 |
BJP lacks base in South
The connotations of nuclearization and non-proliferation are interpreted differently from country to country, which results into serious distortions, causing confusion for the layman. An ordinary citizen asks the question, "How the nuclear club formed by the five recognized nuclear powers, namely the US, the UK, France, China and the Russian Federation, has acquired legitimacy while the other countries which have acquired or are suspected of acquiring nuclear status are labelled as rogue states and international coalitions are formed to physically disarm them?" This important question merits a cogent answer and an effort will be made here to do that.
During the first half of the 20th century, while science was undergoing an unprecedented rapid advancement and a gigantic hoard of eminent scientists, led by Albert Einstein, was busy exploring the secrets of atom, the Second World War came about.
The allies were subjected to the tyranny of the Axis forces of Germany, Japan and Italy. The allies were caught almost in surprise at the beginning of the Great War and their ordnance holding was not up to the mark of fighting a world war. As the war had then been forced on them, the allies underwent a massive mobilization.
New factories sprang up in the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere, out of necessity, to meet the great demand of weaponry. Simultaneously the Manhattan Project was instituted to assemble the atomic bomb.
Allied intelligence had confirmed that German scientists were close to exploding a bomb of that type. The whole array of eminent scientists got together, led by Einstein, in the Manhattan Project, in New York and succeeded in acquiring the bombs, which were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that led to the surrender of Japan and winding up of the Second World War.
The USSR and the United States along with western European countries, which were in an expedient alliance against the Axis forces during the Second World War, became enemies in the post-war era due to Soviet expansionist advance in Europe and the race for expanding respective spheres of influence around the globe.
Thus the notorious cold war era started. It lasted over 40 years and terminated with the dismemberment of the USSR, fall of Berlin wall, reunification of Germany and virtual liquidation of communism, around the beginning of the ninth decade of the 20th century. This was the era of arms race between the capitalist and communist blocs led by the United States and Soviet Russia.
During this period the USSR, China, Britain and France also acquired nuclear capability. Mere acquisition of nuclear capability by these countries was though compatible with their economic potential, the frantic arms race took its toll from the USSR.
The main antagonists were the United States and the USSR. The USSR, in the momentum of that antagonism and eventual arms race went beyond its economic means to achieve and maintain superiority in the war potential, which its economy could not bear indefinitely.
The USSR, therefore, crumbled under its own weight. The regimentation evolved through the Marxist dogma, in the economy and polity of the USSR, practised for over seventy years did cope with the defence requirements of the arms race with the West but at the cost of its economy that ultimately gave in and eventually the dismemberment resulted.
This saga of evolution of atomic age in the world lays bare the fact that the luxury of acquiring nuclear capability for war is not the cup of tea of the economically backward nations. This phenomenon has repeatedly demonstrated its application during the contemporary times as well.
North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Pakistan present a case in point. India is also not an exception in this context whose masses are kept deprived of the basic necessities of life and fundamental rights owing to the Indian leadership's obsession with nuclearization and frantic arms race.
The common people of Korea remain deprived of basic necessities of life and in fact are roughing through perpetual famine conditions. Iran and Libya, like Korea, did the same and are ultimately eating the humble pie by volunteering to do away with their nuclear programmes and have offered unhindered inspections of their relevant sights.
The leaderships of these countries thoughtlessly pursued confrontational policies and made their people groan under the economic sanctions by the West. The Iraqi leadership virtually committed suicide and also facilitated the rampage and devastation of their country, with consequent death and destruction of the poor people, under foreign occupation.
Could a country like Pakistan, which is merely surviving at the edge of economic insolvency since decades, afford the luxury of nuclearization and arms race? Since 9/11 Pakistan is surviving because of its alliance with the US, in combating the so-called international terrorism. But, for sure, it will remain in the queue to follow the fate of Iran, Libya, Korea and will be made amenable for the undue luxury it has been cherishing.
The question whether the five nuclear club countries are justified in maintaining their nuclear arsenals and disarm others by force is a different debate and perhaps the answer of that debate would be a big NO.
But the realities on ground and the practical application of callous evolutionary theory of 'natural selection' dictate that the world has to put up with the status quo. There seems no short cut to that. Any country wanting to enter into the elite international nuclear community respectably will have to go through the route of achieving economic vitality commensurate with the membership.
Correct prioritizing and sound budgeting are prerequisites for sustaining a viable state, as these are the prerequisites for a successful individual or family life. The nuclear game is beyond the means of the poor countries. In case some states out of this poor group, despite economic constraints, insist on going nuclear, they are bound to be erratic in their conduct with regard to the command and control affairs of nuclearization.
In that case it is quite natural for the advanced nuclear powers to assume the role of international policemen and ditch the upstart nuclear states by labelling them as rogue states, through the so-called international coalitions.
It is therefore recommended for the poor countries like Pakistan to strictly adhere to the golden principle of "mind your business". The business in such cases is to work hard to provide the basic necessities of life to the people of their countries, and leave the luxury of going nuclear for those who can afford it.
Even divorced from the above considerations and considering only the deterrence factor, which all nuclear states claim as their aim, acquisition of nuclear status for Pakistan does not hold ground. Technically, the viability of nuclear deterrence must have the attributes of credibility and robustness.
Credibility of deterrence stems from a well articulated and generally well known strategy for the use of the deterrent (nuclear weapons in this case), leaving no doubt in a potential adversary's mind about the country's resolve to use the weapons, to bear the consequences, the thresholds beyond which they will be used and the variety and reliability of the modes of delivery available to the country. Is Pakistan's nuclear deterrent likely to be credible and robust? The answer to this question of vital importance is in negative for so many reasons.
In case of a Pakistani nuclear deterrent, there is a vague understanding that nukes will be used should Pakistani security be threatened. What would be the specific threat perimeters within which the nuclear option will be exercised? What would be the specific mode of exercising that option, that is, what will be the targets? Would only hard targets be hit or would we indulge in hitting soft targets? What will be the delivery modes for the nukes?
These are some of the unanswered questions to which I am afraid even the military and civilian elite of this country has not given much thought. Silence on the above issues gives the impression of profound ambivalence. In the absence of a policy consensus on issues of how to fight a nuclear war or to fight one at all, Pakistan's nuclear deterrent cannot be described as credible.
The second issue is of robustness, that is, can Pakistan's nuclear deterrent survive an Indian first strike should there be one? Can Pakistan, with limited geographical depth and its strategically vulnerable points strung along the GT Road, survive the first nuclear strike of an enemy which has been getting on our nerves since decades and is many times bigger in size in most respects? The answer again is a vague maybe.
Nuclear attacks on Peshawar, Mauripur, Rafiqi and Risalpur will wipe out more than 90 per cent of our air force, therefore removing more than 90 per cent of our capability to deliver our nukes by air. An additional nuke on Wah will again wipe out our main ordnance manufacturing capability. Well-timed hits on static and mobile launchers of Ghauri and other missile launchers, even by conventional means, could pretty much put out our capability of inflicting a punishing counter-strike on India.
In the process, they will destroy all vestiges of any civilized existence in this part of the world for a very long time to come. Conversely, if Pakistan strikes first, India will not be destroyed but in their retaliatory action Pakistan is sure to meet the same fate that would happen in the case of India striking first.
All the bleak answers being derived through the analysis of nuclearization appeal to the common sense that it would be in the fitness of things to keep away from this lethal hobby and instead only "mind your business". The appalling states of literacy, population explosion, health care, housing and employment merit our total attention for ages to come. The national resolve should be to combat the real enemies, that is, hunger, disease and ignorance rather than the shadow enemies, that is, the poverty ridden people of India.
e-mail: arashid38@yahoo.com
BJP lacks base in South
The Congress has a dependable base in southern India. This is what I gather after visiting some of its parts. Even when Mrs Indira Gandhi was routed in the North after the emergency (1975-77), the party retained its supremacy in the South. In fact, Indira Gandhi's comeback trail began from the South.
She fought from the Chikmanglur Lok Sabha constituency in Karnataka in 1979 and defeated Virendra Patil, former chief minister and the ruling Janata Party nominee. Electoral baptism of her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi, also took place in Karnataka from the Bellery constituency in 1999. The BJP put up its big gun, Sushma Swaraj, to stall Sonia's formal entry into politics. Sonia won hands down.
The BJP has very little following in all the four southern states - Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. It had a substantial support in Karnataka. But that was about a decade ago when it secured in a general election around 28 per cent of votes.
The main reason for the BJP's drop in Karnataka has been the lack of leadership. Even now former Union Minister N. Ananth Kumar, inducted as the BJP state unit president, does not make waves. He is not powerful enough even to stop the infighting in the party, much less to retrieve the lost ground. There is also a question mark against his integrity. He is said to be involved in the HUDCO scam when he was the Union Minister for housing. The Congress, which governs the state, finds the charge coming in handy.
Compared to Ananth Kumar, Chief Minister S.M. Krishna is an established leader with a long record of public service. There is not a speck of scandal on him. His problem is that state Congress chief S Janardharn Poojary is all the time projecting himself. When Krishna was in two minds whether to go for the assembly and Lok Sabha elections at the same time, Poojary threatened to deny tickets to those who were opposed to the simultaneous polls.
S. Bangarappa, the ex-chief minister of Karnataka, wants to stage a comeback. He has been absolved of cases of corruption against him. He, like Poojary, claims a direct channel to Sonia Gandhi, not through Krishna. Bangarappa has declined the position of election campaign manager on the plea that Sonia should herself tell him to accept the post.The party would have a problem if the wife of Ramakrishna Hegde, who died recently, were to be won over by the BJP. The Congress is also trying to woo her. She has the sympathy factor in her favour.
Former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, heading the Janata Dal (Secular), is too arrogant to approach her or Hegde's supporters. Even in Hegde's lifetime, Gowda considered himself a better leader with a larger base. He has a few pockets of influence but not enough to put up a fight against the Congress which looks like improving its position both in the assembly and Lok Sabha elections. The Congress can be embarrassed if the BJP is able to rope in Virendra Patil's son who is a Lingayat. The Congress leaders and Gowda are Vokalingas. The two castes have decided the fate of Karnataka for many years. They can still do if they were to join hands.
But at present they are divided and both the BJP and Congress are trying to woo them. I was in Kerala when K Karunakaran, an octogenarian Congress leader, announced he would form a separate Indira Gandhi Congress Party. None took him seriously.
All his anger was for obtaining a cabinet berth for his son, K Muralidharan, also the state Congress chief. Now that he has become a minister Karunakaran has piped down. However, he hates chief minister A.K. Anthony so much - he accuses him of projecting the Christian identity - that Karunakaran may covertly support the Left Democratic Front. He has already appeared with the Communists on some platforms. The LDF too is depending on him to improve its present tally from 10 to 13 in a total of 20.
The Muslim League is firmly with the United Democratic Front and feels happy that the Dravida Munentra Kazhagam (DMK) has given it a seat in Tamil Nadu. It looks almost certain that the Muslim League will win the two Kerala seats but whether it would do so in Tamil Nadu is anybody's guess.
I have a feeling that many Muslims in the South, particularly in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, may vote for the BJP because of the Atal Behari Vajpayee factor. His initiative on Pakistan and the follow-up at Islamabad have gone down well with them, although their dislike for the BJP has not lessened in any way.
The AIADMK's understanding with the BJP in Tamil Nadu was a foregone conclusion after the DMK's alliance with the Congress. Strange how the Congress and the BJP have switched sides. The BJP's proximity with the AIADMK is all the more surprising because it was instrumental in throwing out the Vajpayee government when it lost by one vote. That the two leaders have come together after a long estrangement underlines the fact that opportunism has vitiated the political atmosphere.
The old Congress, the remnants of the Kamaraj or the Moopanar group, does not have much of a following. Former finance minister P Chidambaram still ploughs a lonely furrow but he does not count for much. It will ultimately follow Sonia. She is, however, reportedly unhappy that the DMK has given some of the Congress seats to Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK).
Still Sonia was very keen to have DMK chief M Karunanidhi on her side because he was the only force which withstood the pro-emergency wave that swept the South in the 1977 election. Even otherwise Sonia never liked Jayalalitha for her proximity to Rajiv Gandhi. The AIADMK would have the incumbency factor going against it. The BJP, without any base of its own, will suffer the most.
Andhra Pradesh still basks in the feel-good factor of its chief minister Chandrababu Naidu's solid work. He would have had a better showing if some of his projects had germinated early enough. But his main worry is not because of lack of visible achievements. It is the growing movement for a separate Telengana state which can cost him as many as 100 seats in the assembly, also going to the polls along with the Lok Sabha.
That the People's War Group, a Naxalite movement, has joined hands with the opposition could work both ways. Its violence has alienated many voters. But its protection of poor farmers against rapacious landlords and moneylenders has deepened its support.
The police excesses at certain places have specially helped it to expand. Still its pulling power in elections is limited.
What makes up for Naidu's deficiencies is the Congress infighting. There are too many leaders in the party trying to garner personal support at the expense of the party. Andhra Pradesh is one state where the Congress can have a good showing provided the party closes its ranks.
The limited support the BJP has in the state may give Naidu's Telugu Desam the necessary edge as it happened during the last assembly election. But the BJP wants seats in its own name and believes that Andhra Pradesh can give it a break in South. If Naidu does so, it will be at the expense of Telugu Desam.
The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.