Before beginning to read the following lines, i would like to invite you to read a very compelling statement from one of the brightest human minds, a quote from Albert Einstein displayed on upper left corner of this page....(upper left from the viewers perspective not that of the screen's left side :P)
After taming Nazis and their allies in the second world
war, the process of decolonization began throughout the world. The Britishers,
devastated by war began to give independence to the countries they have long enslaved
for their political and economic benefits. During the process India got its independence
from the British masters in the year of 1947. Though it is a historically
acknowledged fact that Britain left India in quite a haste without considering
the long term effects that would follow such a hasty retreat. Leaving aside the
discussion of the unpragmatic division of India on religious lines, the plans
of British government were as flawed as the ideology behind the creation of
Pakistan. Also leaving aside what actually was the Jinnah’s vision while
demanding a majority Muslim state in the heart of South Asia by dividing India
into two free and sovereign states, it is a well established fact that has been
acknowledged and worshiped on both sides of the border that Pakistan came into
being on the basis of a religious ideology and it has to become a model Islamic
State. This ideology gave birth to the first political conflict between India
and Pakistan. Indians wanted an undivided secular and democratic India while
the advocates of Pakistan movements were of the view that it would be
impossible for Muslims to accept such proposition keeping in view the absolute
majority that Hindus enjoy in India and this would undermine the democratic
rights of the second religious majority of the subcontinent and they would fall
prey to the Hindutva design. This political conflict formed the basis of every
problem that two nations have faced since their independence.
Despite the fact
that statesmen from both sides have on several occasions advanced olive
branches to each other and vowed to work for the development and prosperity of
whole region, they were unable to come closer to each other in a true sense
owing to the mistrust that had developed with the start of Pakistan movement well
before the independence and the partition of India. This mistrust is the root
of every bilateral conflict, the wars, and every other form of attacks from
both sides of the border.
Soon after their independence, Pakistan out of fear of
annihilation at the hands of more powerful and strong India began efforts to align
itself with one of the blocs in contemporary world, US or Soviet, eventually
placing it into the US block which was considered more beneficial and
trustworthy given the religious ideology that formed the basis of the country’s
independence. In tit for tat movement, though in official terms India was not aligned
with any of the two great powers, but practically given the ground reality that
Pakistan has aligned itself to the US block, India had become a de-facto ally
of the Soviet union without having severed its ties with the United States and
we have seen the benefits of this political manoeuvre for India in all the wars
it has fought with Pakistan. Now being somewhat confident of support from the
US against any act of Indian aggression, Pakistan started to build a strong
defence by increasing its defence expenditure. It was seen as a provocation by
the Indian side and an arms race started in the south Asian region. As in
international politics, now Pakistan and India had developed mirror images of
each other, an attempt to make its defence invincible from one side was seen as
an attempt of preparation to attack by the other, the arms race was at full
swing. Being cognizant of the fact that given the geographical, economic and
political advantages India enjoyed it would be impossible for Pakistan to
resist India for very long at instance of an all out war, Pakistan treaded another
path, a very dangerous one. It started nurturing the non-state actors with an
aim in mind of using them to achieve its goal without provoking India for any
major conflict. It came out to be a very huge miscalculation and did not
prevent the happening of a major conflict like that of 1965.
Now the emphasis
from the both sides was to attain and achieve an absolute deterrence that would
provide surety against any major conflict from arising, the nuclear project. It
was perceived to be a deterrent that would provide for an ultimate deterrence
against any aggression, it would help to curtail the spiraling defence
expenditure and freeze the status quo.
The nuclearization of South Asia was in many prospects a
huge failure for both sides. Though it provided the deterrent that it was supposed
to provide, that is prevention of a major conflict, as we have not seen any
like 65 and 71 so far. But all other assumptions have come out to be a bluff, ……defence
budget, freezing of the status quo, stopping the aggression……. We have seen several
standoffs between the two armies at various occasions. We have seen a limited
scale conflict like that of 1999 and the recent one after the Pulwama terrorist
attacks. We have seen two militaries come face to face in 2002, 2008 and in 2018.
We have seen both countries increasing their defence expenditures beyond their
means. Line of control has never been left to cool down. This is what we call,
in realm of military Nuclear Doctrines, ‘Stability-Instability’ paradox. The nuclearization
of South Asia has eliminated the prospects of an all out war or any major
conflicts, but at the same time it has emboldened both the states and also the
non-state actors to assume this umbrella for achieving their military and
political objectives without inviting the other state to escalate it into a
major conflict.
Nuclear weapons have not lived up to the dreams of their
creators. They have created illusionary invincibility theories on the both
sides of the border. The huge resources and money that were put into realizing
such a deterrence has gone waste. If the same resources were put into place for
confidence building measures (CBMs), welfare of the common public, educating
the masses, inculcating the democratic norms and values we would have achieved
much more than just terrifying the humanity of annihilation at the hands of
such monsters. We would have given people from the both sides a hope of a happy
and prosperous life without any threat. We would have given them the democratic
values. We would have given them to think beyond conflicts. But why we could
not do this. What hindered the leaders from the both sides to think in this dimension…..For
a moment, think.
Who would have been a loser if the region was not
nuclearized. Who would have to die if people from both sides were not ready to
kill each other. Who is the main beneficiary of all this military project?
Though nothing happens in isolation. We are living in a
connected global world where international politics drive the regional and
national politics and vice versa. But the real beneficiaries of this project
are, in India, the Politicians, in Pakistan, it’s the army, which is the real politician
of the country. If the masses were educated, how would they be able to fool
them in name of religion, nationalism and demonising each other. How could they
turn their backs on developing the society and providing the basic human needs
and facilities. They would have to do their real assignment, had they not
created a demon out of the other state for their masses. The real assignment
would render them bankrupt, powerless and mere administrators, not the heroes
that they have become today.
Nuclearization of
South Asia has not brought peace and prosperity to the region but mere
conflicts, bloodshed and more bloodshed. The impoverished people on the both
sides are the real victims of this Nuclear Brinkmanship. While we hope for the
sanity to prevail from both sides, this sanity should come from the common
public not so-called leaders-cum-heroes on both sides.
Nuclear weapons Won, humanity lost the battle.
