Iran's nuclear dilemma

Two senior Indian scientists have been accused by the United States of helping Iran in its nuclear programme. The names of Y.S.R. Prasad and C. Surender, former heads of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, appeared last week on a list that included companies from Spain, Ukraine, Russia, China and North Korea, and who stand accused of assisting Iran in building either missiles or weapons of mass destruction.

The irony is that the accusation about the Indian scientists' involvement in Iran's "illegal weapons programme" came soon after Washington had lifted restrictions on cooperation with New Delhi in space technology and civilian nuclear power.

Of course, both Indian scientists deny any wrongdoing. Mr Surendar says he never visited Iran. Mr Prasad admits having helped Iran, after his retirement in 2000, with safety advice at the Bushehr nuclear power plant being built with Russian help.

According to The Economist (October 7, 2004), when Mr Prasad's name was first linked to Iran last year, the Indian government "put it about that he had gone there without asking approval". But now New Delhi has come to the defence of the two scientists and demanded that that their names be dropped from the sanctions list.

According to Henry Sokolski, director of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Centre, America's concerns may relate to a process Indian nuclear scientists invented some time ago to extract tritium, used to boost the explosive power of nuclear bombs, from heavy water used in some of India's power reactors.

The US accusation against the Indian scientists implies that Tehran may be hoping to exploit its planned heavy water reactor to produce its own tritium with the help of Indian technology.

Whether the new twist being given to the Iranian nuclear programme reflects genuine American concerns or is part of a propaganda campaign, in preparation for a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear installations, is too early to say.

It may be observed that for some time Tehran has shown a keen interest in New Delhi's plans for a nuclear-powered submarine. Also, some Indian firms have been ticked off by Washington "for other sorts of weapons cooperation."

It will be interesting to watch whether the row over the alleged involvement of senior Indian nuclear scientists in Iran's nuclear programme will have any effect on the emerging "strategic partnership" between the two countries.

Iran, however, insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. "We have made our choice: yes to peaceful nuclear technology and no to nuclear weapons," says Iranian president Mohammad Khatami.

Among the doubters are, besides the United States, the European trio - Britain, France and Germany - that last October claimed they had "the makings of a face-saving deal to head off Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Since then, the International Atomic Energy Agency ((IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, has also hardened its attitude because its inspectors claim to have produced more evidence of past wrongdoing.

In a critical report, Mohammed El Baradei, the IAEA's head, has censured Iran for producing experimental amounts of uranium hexafluoride gas (a crucial step in enriching uranium for bombs) and revoking an agreement to stop making centrifuge components (used to separate the bomb-grade uranium from the gas).

The report has also admonished Iran for not divulging more about a second, secret centrifuge programme that came to light earlier this year. Another grievance of the IAEA is that its inspectors have still not received a satisfactory explanation for some traces of enriched uranium found at different places in Iran.

Consequently, the 35-nation board of IAEA at its meeting on September 18 decided that a full accounting of Iran's nuclear pogramme would be made at the next meeting of the board on November 25.

Tension is rising ahead of this meeting because Washington is expected to raise the stakes at this meeting by calling for the Iranian nuclear issue to be sent to the UN Security Council.

However, the idea has come from the G-8, made up of the world's top industrialized nations, to make a last call to Iran, ahead of the November 25 crucial IAEA meeting, to suspend enrichment and answer all questions about its nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile, the European Union has reiterated its willingness to renew dialogue with Iran but only on condition of its suspension of uranium enrichment activities.

While maintaining a defiant attitude, Iranian foreign minister held out an olive branch on October 12 by calling on the European Union to help find a solution to the stand off between Tehran and the UN's nuclear watchdog but refused to give up the sensitive fuel cycle work.

Britain, France and Germany would like to strike " a Libya-style" deal with Iran that rewards Tehran with a host of incentives if it gives up its work on the nuclear cycle altogether.

Iran, however, continues to be firm on enrichment. Buoyed by high oil prices, Iran now seems to be less susceptible to international pressure. The Iranian parliament has refused to ratify an agreement for intrusive inspections.

The Iranian officials have even warned that Tehran could drop out altogether from the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty if the IAEA board sends its case to the UN Security Council and sanctions follow.

If diplomacy fails to find a way out before the November 25 deadline, the Iranian nuclear issue will take a serious turn. President Bush says, "all options are on the table" for making sure Iran dismantles its nuclear programme.

He has vowed that Washington will never let Tehran acquire atomic weapons. On the other hand, Iran says "no negotiations with the Americans are on the agenda, but we call on the Europeans to discuss with us."

The Israeli factor cannot be ignored in the case of Iran. There is a serious danger that if it gets the green signal from Washington, Tel Aviv may repeat what it did to Iraq in 1981 when it destroyed Iraq's Osirik reactor near Baghdad.

The prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran has been further heightened following recent reports that the US intends to sell 500 bunker buster bombs to Israel along with other precision munitions.

The bunker-buster bombs are capable of penetrating six feet of concrete and destroying underground facilities. Though both Washington and Tel Aviv insist that there is no explicit threat to Tehran's nuclear plants, the timing of the purchase does not appear to be a mere coincidence.

The timing of the next IAEA board meeting (November 25) is not without significance. By that time the American presidential election will be over and Tehran as well as the board members will know with whom they are going to deal over the next four years. Some analysts think that despite putting up a brave front, Iran still seems keen to avoid being reported to the Security Council.

At the moment, Iran seems determined to hang on to the nuclear option. Because the Bush administration sees Iran's "continued intransigence" as proof that it harbours weapons ambitions, it is difficult to imagine how a showdown can be avoided on November 25 if President Bush is re-elected. Unless, of course, there is a change of heart on Iran's part, which, at the moment, seems improbable.

Tehran may be hoping for a change of administration in Washington because John Kerry has made it clear that, if elected, he will hold direct bilateral talks with Iran.

That may open a window of opportunity for diplomacy. It is being increasingly realized that a deal between Washington and Tehran is what is needed much more than reliance on the IAEA and economic and military threats. The coming weeks are fraught with great opportunities as well as dangers.

The marginalized victims of Aids

In last week's vice-presidential debate, moderator Gwen Ifill talked about the disproportionate impact of HIV-Aids on African-American women and asked what role the government should play in slowing the growth of this domestic epidemic.

Both candidates displayed an alarming ignorance of the reality of the crisis in the United States, choosing instead to focus their comments on Aids in Africa, which Ifill had explicitly asked them not to do.

What is inexcusable among the nation's top policymakers is a persistent problem in the general public as well: a failure to recognize that Aids now disproportionately affects women.

According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the proportion of all Aids cases reported among adolescent and adult women in the United States has more than tripled since 1986.

Aids is the fourth-leading cause of death among women in the US between the ages of 25 and 44, and is the leading cause of death among African-American women ages 25 to 34. Black women represent about two-thirds of all new HIV infections among adult and adolescent females.

Globally, about half of the 12,000 people ages 15 to 49 infected every day are women. Sixty-two per cent of those ages 15 to 24 living with HIV-Aids are girls and women. In South Africa, that figure climbs to 77 per cent. Most women world wide, including in the United States, acquire HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse.

Why is this "feminization of Aids" occurring? The answer lies in the complex ways that gender intersects, conferring increased vulnerability to HIV infection on women and girls.

Biological, sociological and political factors interact differently for women and men, leaving women more susceptible to viral transmission, more distant from prevention and care services, farther away from accurate information, and far more vulnerable to human rights violations.

Here are some of the specifics: Women are more vulnerable to HIV infection than men. The physiology of the female body makes women twice as likely to acquire HIV from men as vice versa. Among adolescent girls, this effect is even more pronounced.

Poverty is correlated with higher rates of HIV infection all over the world. Globally, more than half the people living in poverty are women. In the US, nearly 30 per cent are African-American women.

Lack of education is associated with higher HIV infection rates. Girls in developing countries are less likely to complete secondary education than boys, and almost twice as likely to be illiterate.

Early marriage is a significant risk factor for HIV among women and girls. In developing countries, a majority of sexually active girls ages 15 to 19 are married. Married adolescent girls tend to have higher HIV infection rates than their sexually active unmarried peers.

A significant risk factor for HIV infection is violence, to which women are more susceptible in virtually all societies. In a South African study, for example, women who were beaten or dominated by their partners were 48 per cent more likely to become infected than women who lived in non-violent households.

Rape has been used as a tool for subjugation and so-called ethnic cleansing in war and conflict situations. Of the 250,000 women raped during the Rwandan genocide, about 70 per cent of the survivors are HIV-positive.

The experience of women and girls in the HIV-AIDS epidemic in the United States and around the world highlights how social arrangements, cultural norms, laws, policies and institutions contribute to the unequal status of women in society and to the spread of disease.

Together they undermine the capacity of women and girls to exercise power over their own lives and to control the circumstances that increase their vulnerability to HIV infection. For African-American women, gender inequalities are exacerbated by persistent racism.

It is only when this is acknowledged and addressed particularly by the highest levels of government that we will be able to stem the alarming increase of HIV-Aids among more than half the world's population. - Dawn/ The Washington Post

India's crisis of confidence

India faces a different kind of crisis. It is not economic, not even political. It is the crisis of confidence. The two main political parties in the country do not trust each other.

This has led to a running battle between the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It cannot be wished away because one leads the ruling combination, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the other, heading the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), sits in the opposition.

There used to be a third force, that of regional parties, acting as a pressure group or an option. But that force has been gobbled up partly by the Congress and partly by the BJP.

Leaving the left apart, the Congress feels that those who are not with it are against it. The same thinking prevails in the BJP. How do you arrive at some meeting point when the confrontation has taken an ideological turn?

Things were not so bad till the BJP's defeat at the Lok Sabha polls. True, the Congress did not reconcile itself to the Atal Behari Vajpayee rule so long as it lasted and disrupted parliament many a time. But the party faced the fact of not being in power.

The BJP is still not willing to accept this. Every act of it reflects hostility. It is nothing new. But the distance between the two has widened in the past decade, especially during the last six years when the BJP was in power at the centre.

The NDA still believes that it is only a matter of time before it will be in power. The BJP even gave currency to an astrology prediction that the Manmohan Singh government would not last beyond September 26. Even the tall party leaders indulged in such wishful thinking.

Various permutations and combinations were vainly tried out. An emissary reportedly sounded out Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader M. Karunanidhi whether he would accept the post of prime minister with the support of the BJP.

Even if he were to cross over to the NDA, he cannot dislodge the government. Manmohan Singh was not bragging in Mumbai when he said that his ministry would last its full term of five years despite "tantrik tricks." So long as the left is with the Congress, there is no danger to the government.

However, some differences can crop up in 2006 when there will be a straight contest between the Congress and the left during the assembly elections in Kerala and West Bengal. At present, the problem pertains to the functioning of parliament.

Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has called a meeting of all political parties on November 7 to discuss the smooth working of parliament. He has even asked vice-president Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, a BJP prodigy, to preside over the meeting. But the vibes are not favourable. Many BJP members say that unless the Congress gives them "space" they would not allow parliament to function. They may well be right.

The BJP has practically not allowed parliament to transact any business since its formation in May. Once, the party created a rumpus on the ground that its members did not want to sit in the same house where the "tainted ministers" in the UPA government were present.

The second time the issue raised was about the removal of Vir Savarkar's plaque from the Andaman jail where he was under life imprisonment before independence. Central minister Mani Shankar Aiyar had ordered the plaque's removal.

This plaque was not that of the British days but the one put up during the BJP's rule. Both the BJP and the Congress have differed on the role of Vir Savarkar: in the eyes of the BJP he is a patriot but for the Congress he is a renegade.

Another controversy has arisen which may affect the next session of parliament in November. The BJP, egged on by former defence minister George Fernandes, may make the Tehelka tape inquiry an issue to stall the two houses.

The party has already expressed its anger over the new twist the Congress government has given to the probe into irregularities in the country's defence deals after the Tehelka disclosures.

The commission of inquiry headed by Justice S.N. Phukan has been wound up. Instead, the CBI has been entrusted with the job. This is indeed odd, and the BJP has a point.

One can criticize the commission for not finishing the job even in three years. But the government is wrong in converting a judicial inquiry into a departmental one. After all, the CBI is under the home ministry. Former Samata Party president Jaya Jaitly is right in voicing her doubts.

The government's reasoning that the commission had been given too many extensions does not cut much ice. The Liberhan commission on the demolition of the Babri masjid has been going on and on for a decade now. The Nanavati commission on the 1984 Delhi riots has had several extensions. Why treat the commission probing the Tehelka tapes differently?

It really boils down to mistrust. The Congress views with suspicion anything that the BJP does and vice-versa. The real battleground is going to be the administration. After forming the government, the Congress has found to its horror that the BJP, with its parochial approach, has penetrated the central secretariat and other offices of the government of India.

Senior officials are saffronized and the rules of conduct have been flouted to accommodate even whole-time Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) workers. How the Congress cleanses the stable is the problem.

Human Resources Development Minister Arjun Singh says openly that there is no segment of education which is above the taint of communalism. He has already joined issue with the Sangh Parivar.

What is provoking the clash is the Congress plan to get rid of Parivar's sympathizers, wherever they are. The first casualty was the removal of three state governors for their "ideological leanings."

All other steps of the Congress froze in the tracks when the BJP created a furore over their dismissal. But it is only a pause. A new strategy is being worked out.

What really haunts the BJP is not the removal of some of its men but the fear that it may not come to power even after the next election. The Parivar's Vishwa Hindu Parishad has tested the water and found that even the Ram temple issue does not evoke an emotional response.

Some Muslim hotheads are foolishly trying to resurrect Hindu fundamentalism by talking about the 25 per cent reservations in jobs. Any reservation on the basis of religion is bound to give another lease of life to Hindutva. Otherwise, the BJP has nothing else to project.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Liaquat's democratic credentials: Today is Liaquat Ali Khan's 53rd death anniversary

While moving a resolution for approval by the Constituent Assembly on the design of Pakistan's national flag on August 11, 1947, Liaquat declared, "as I visualize the future Constitution of Pakistan, it will stand for freedom, liberty and equality of all the citizens of the Pakistan state".

Indeed, he visualized Pakistan as "a state where there will be no special privileges, no special rights for any one particular interest. It will be a state where every citizen will have equal rights and equal opportunities. It will be a state where people will have equal privileges..."

Such complete unanimity of views on the basics of a polity between the leader and his chief lieutenant is a phenomenon that seldom happens. For instance, it did not in the case of Gandhi and Nehru, Soekarno and Natsir, Naguib and Nasser, Ben Bella and Boumedienne. But it did in the case of Jinnah and Liaquat.

Liaquat stood by these principles to the end of his all-too-brief tenure. For instance, during the debate on the Objectives Resolution (1949), when Srish Chandra Chattopadihya, the leader of the Congress Party in the (first) Constituent Assembly, remarked that Pakistani nationals were only Hindus or Muslims, Liaquat interrupted him, saying, "I say we are both.

I do not see any contradiction in this statement. You can be the nationals of a state, with equal rights, equal privileges and equal responsibilities and yet remain Muslims and Hindus."

Despite mounting pressure from the religious extremists, Liaquat opted for a progressive interpretation of Islam, an interpretation which was acceptable even to the foremost spokesman of the left in Pakistan's formative years - Mian Iftikharuddin.

Those who cavil at the sovereignty clause in the Objectives Resolution would do well to have a look at the actual wording and the context. It says, "Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the state of Pakistan through the people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust..."

Whether or not the members of the Constituent Assembly were clear on some issues, they were quite explicit in resolving that if Pakistan were to became an "Islamic democracy", it should be by the choice of its citizens.

This explains why the resolution recognizes the people - all the people, and not the followers of any particular faith - as the vehicle of the authority delegated by God to the state of Pakistan.

No wonder, the resolution speaks of or refers to "the people" in four other clauses and lays emphasis on the rights of the people, the representation of the people, the prosperity of the people, their place in the comity of nations, and the exercise of power and authority by the chosen representatives of the people.

Thus, the resolution tends to be people-oriented. But this salient feature has generally remained ignored in most recent discussions on the Objectives resolution. As in latter day discussions, the main objection to the resolution raised by the Congress Party members related to the statement "that power is derived from God", which they characterized as a "theocratic" approach.

Now which religion and which people in the world do not affirm the sovereignty of God Almighty/Ultimate Reality over the entire universe, as some of the participants in the debate on the Objectives Resolution had asked.

What, however, is more important is that, as Liaquat argued, "all authority is a trust (delegated) to us by God for the purpose of being exercised in the service of man, so that it does not become an agency for tyranny and selfishness". Moreover, "that authority has been delegated to the people and none else, and it is for the people to decide who will exercise that authority."

Furthermore, the resolution affirms that "the state shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people". "This," argued Liaquat, "is the very essence of democracy, because the people have been recognized as the recipients of all authority and it is in them that the power to wield it has been vested."

When all power and authority are vested in the people, the question of establishing a theocracy in Pakistan does not arise. For, as Liaquat argued, "... in a technical sense, theocracy has come to mean a government by ordained priests, who wield authority as being specifically appointed by those who claim to derive their rights from their sacerdotal position.... such an idea is absolutely foreign to Islam. Islam does not recognize either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority, and, therefore, the question of a theocracy simply does not arise in Islam...."

On this issue, Liaquat was stolidity supported by Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the doyen of the ulema at the time. "... An Islamic state," he asserted, "does not mean the government of the ordained priests.

How could Islam countenance the false idea which the Quran so emphatically repudiated in the following words, "They, the Jews and the Christians, took their priests and their authorities to be their Lords in derogation to God." (Surah Tauba X:5).

In this context, a perusal of what Mian Iftikharuddin said on the occasion is both enlightening and rewarding. He said, "Sir, I assure the members of the Congress Party that the wording of the preamble does not in any way make this Objectives Resolution any the more theocratic, any the more religious than the resolution or the statement of fundamental principles of some of the modern countries of the world.

We know, sir, that the constitutions of many countries start, if not with exactly the same, at least by somewhat similar words. Ireland is not the only country that I know of, the constitution of which starts with somewhat similar words about God.

Practically every country of the British empire derives its authority through the agency of the king from God. It is always mentioned, the king emperor, by the grace of God, and, so on.

The members of the Congress Party need feel no more nervous than do the subjects of the British empire or the citizens of the Irish free state on the wording of the resolution."

The more important thing, however, is that in the ideological controversy engulfing the new state, Liaquat opted for a sane, balanced and constructive approach, an approach that induced a broad consensus. And much to the consternation of the extremists, he opted for democracy as against theocracy.

To quote Professor Grunebaum, "on the theoretical level at least, as good an integration of traditional and western ideas has been reached in this document as one might reasonably expect".

To him, "the attempted bridging of the gap between the Muslim tradition and the western idea of the nation-state deserves the greatest attention" (Modern Islam). Likewise, the renowned Professor Wilfred Canwell Smith has commented favourably and extensively on the Objectives Resolution in his Islam in Modern History (1957).

Those who indulge in an outpouring of wild rhetoric on the Islamic state issue without rhyme or reason, day in and day out, may as well study closely the Objectives Resolution and the entire debate on it, to see for themselves the parameters of the "Islamic democracy" that had been sought to be delineated in the resolution by the leaders of independence and the wisdom and the foresight they had brought to its formulation.

It does not call for the establishment of an Islamic democracy from above, through a fiat, as has happened in some Muslim countries. Instead, it chooses the democratic path of building the sort of state Pakistanis desire.

Indeed, it opts for the evolutionary approach and makes the establishment of an "Islamic democracy" contingent upon the people's choice. That's why Professor Smith calls Pakistan a singular case of being Islamic via the democratic route.

Finally, what Liaquat aspired to accomplish was succinctly spelled out in his address: "... we want to build up a truly liberal government where the greatest amount of freedom will be given to all its members. Everyone will be equal before the law, but this does not mean that his personal law will not be protected.

We believe in the equality of status and justice...." And it was because of the ethos of liberal Islam promoted by Liaquat's policies and the timely thwarting of the rise of a theocratic streak in Pakistan's body politic that enabled even the religious-oriented Khwaja Nazimuddin to withstand the mounting pressure of the religious extremist fringe to dismiss Sir Zafarullah Khan from the cabinet in 1953, despite the backing of a heavy weight from Punjab.

The writer is an eminent author and former director of the Quaid-i-Azam Academy.