Russian leader Vladimir Putin and US President George Bush signed a historic treaty cutting their long-range nuclear warheads by two thirds. Ironic, that while the Big Two were meeting in Moscow to pare down their nuclear arsenals (to make the world a safer place?), Pakistan, in the midst of tension on the borders, tested the Ghauri missile raising possibilities of a new arms race on the subcontinent and provoking new levels of paranoia. The timing of the exercise leads one to wonder if the third world is bound to copy by compulsion or to relive and adopt technologies that the developed West is in the process of discarding or putting to disuse.  From poisonous wastes to baseless fears (that touched off the nuclear arms race in the first place), the third world must receive its due share of what�s pass� and make it de rigueur. Must the third world pass through the same stages of trial and error in spite of revolutionary jumps in communication and the simultaneous living of history? Should we commit the same mistakes and blunders despite the advantage of hindsight wisdom? Surely not another Hiroshima.

The world has changed since Hiroshima and nuclear weaponry has advanced greatly in sophistication. But such was the fear and horror instilled by the event that it became taboo to even think of   nuclear weapons and their possible use again. Their very terror had a deterrent effect and led to uneasy peace despite brinkmanship in international affairs the last being the Cuban Missile crisis. With terrorism and suicide bombings on the increase, threat of a crude or dirty bomb has become a near possibility with terrorist groups who are always outside the pale of civilised values and responsibility growing more desperate. In fact their very purpose is to spread fear and terror for often little understood ends. And such is the menace of terrorism today and so vast its resource and reach that the use of at least tactical nuclear weapons to counter the threat is theoretically acceptable. Some states that allegedly sponsor terrorism feel tempted to possess the bomb as a weapon for possible use in some set of circumstances to serve some end. It may be stated in the most unambiguous terms that playing with nuclear weapons is a grave sin and crime�a crime not only against humanity but against Nature too. It means an invitation to a meltdown of civilisation itself. More particularly the itching fingers of the military should be miles away from the nuclear button whatever the circumstances.

Politicians are often kept in the dark, including prime ministers, about the goings on in the nuclear arena in Pakistan. �There seems to be a pattern in this. The military in Pakistan has traditionally formulated and implemented the national security policy. It is also the custodian, unlike the Indian military, of the country�s nuclear arsenal and shares information with civilian set-ups on nuclear and other defence-related issues only on a need-to-know basis. Most civilian governments have to kowtow to military in order to survive.� And the question is asked:  �How does Pakistan want to survive in this world? As a civilian-democratic state integrated into the international system or as a military dominated international pariah? That the answer to this question is deeply tied up with the issue of civil-military relations in Pakistan should not be lost on anyone who cares to read through Reidel�s paper.� (Revelations about Kargil: edit in the Daily Times).

Hussain Haqqani in The Nation states the reason why Pakistan could possibly resort to nuclear weapons in the event of a war. �In a showdown involving conventional warfare, Pakistan would be at a disadvantage. Indigenously manufactured weapons and arms supplied by China might not be sufficient to effectively ward off an attack by India, which has been buying modern weapons on the international market from a variety of sources. This military imbalance means the possibility of a resort to nuclear weapons by Pakistan in the event of a war cannot be completely excluded.�

The passage of time and the advent of suicide bombers make it necessary that the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine be revised. In fact there is need for a new philosophy of deterrence. Nuclear deterrence doctrine as such is full of contradictions from the beginning. One contradiction being its instability with regard to technological advance. Each new technological advance by the offence demands a response by the deterrent so there is no fixed answer to how much is enough. The �MAD� doctrine was based on fear. Fear backed by credible and unambiguous threat. But what happens when FEAR gives way to WILLED DESTRUCTION?

A news report by K J M Varma (PTI in www.rediff.com) suggests Pak will not hesitate to use nukes against India. It is based on the remarks of a senior Pakistan minister and former Inter-Services Intelligence chief.  �If it ever comes to annihilation of Pakistan then what is this damned nuclear option for, we will use against the enemy.� Minister for Railways, Javed Ashraf Qazi reportedly told an Iranian news agency that the general view was that there would be mutual destruction on both sides (in the event of a nuclear confrontation) but Pakistan won�t hesitate to use nuclear weapons in case of the question of its survival. �If Pakistan is being destroyed through conventional means, we will destroy them by using the nuclear option.� Literally dragging down the ditch �my enemy with me�.

 This is both serious and alarming and echoes similar remarks made by the General in an interview to a German newspaper recently. Desperation might turn the feared nightmare into reality that in turn becomes nightmarish singed by unimaginably high temperatures and radiation.

The army is responsible for the present anarchy in Pakistan.  It had always sabotaged the democratic process there. This according to Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the Jammat-e-Islami chief. The increasing tension both on eastern and western borders was posing a threat to the existence of Pakistan, said the Qazi. He also pointed to the serious law and order situation, the political crisis and the economic disorder prevailing in Pakistan. (Shaukat Khattak in The Nation).

Aziz-ud-Din Ahmad in The Nation says �he (the General) has run short of options and is having cold feet�Musharraf continued to take decisions on his own while he completely cold shouldered politicians�it is increasingly becoming difficult for Musharraf to ignore the opposition. Musharraf wants to use the external threat to coax the opposition into toeing his line. Using the card of patriotism, he would like the politicians to extend full support to the policies being pursued by the regime. The general in fact does not want to consult the opposition�. By holding talks with the opposition Musharraf would also like to strengthen his position at home and abroad. Once this has been achieved, he would hold elections on his own terms i.e. debarring politicians not liked by him from the contest and having a rubber stamp assembly ready to pass constitutional amendments aimed at institutionalising the army�s role in polity.�

Musharraf is locked in a power struggle. An edit in The Washington Post (May 15), tells us more: �Last month he staged a one-sided referendum to extend his term as president for five years, an initiative that served to weaken rather than confirm his political authority. Now he is talking about imposing a military-dominated national security council to oversee future civilian governments. Pakistan�s normally fractious political parties, media and civil society have united in opposition to these measures, virtually ensuring that Mr Musharraf will be locked in power struggle for the foreseeable future, not with Muslim extremists but with the very Pakistanis who most support a secular and democratic society.�

An edit in The Hindustan Times had this comment on a Pakistan gone adrift. �Pervez Musharraf�s too-clever-by-half policies are now coming home to roost. Now, his secret encouragement of the jehadi enterprise in Kashmir has revived the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy in Pakistan, exposing the hollowness of his self-serving referendum. In asking the general to step down, the alliance has underlined the fatuity of a �leader� who is accountable to no one, and who is allowing Pakistan to drift into a critical situation with unforeseen consequences.�

Farhan Bokhari in The Japan Times outlines the steps the General must take: �First, the Pakistani military, which has ruled the country for almost half of its 50-year existence, must have a clearly defined role in the fight against crime�Second, the fight against crime and terrorism needs support of a national political consensus�Finally, his ultimate challenge lies in improving the peoples quality of life. The choices embraced by Musharraf will set the course for the future.�

While the situation on the subcontinent remained volatile and uncertain, it is generally agreed that the �developments are collectively indicative of a dangerous security downslide in the region, which may push things towards an all-out war between the two nuclear-armed rivals,� as an edit in The Nationpointed out among other things.

New Delhi May 28 2002