Report

But for a culturally activist forum like Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT), New Delhi, India, the nuclear adventure signifies internal challenges from undemocratic and communal forces that put the sub-continent polities and societies in danger. It has given the South Asian fundamentalists an aggressive self-image they have been seeking for the last 50 years. "It has only opened the floodgates of a possible arms race in the sub-continent to the great detriment to the pressing needs of development, " as says renowned Marxist historian and a friend of SAHMAT. Hence, peace for SAHMAT transcends beyond being a single issued agenda. This organisation links disarmament in sub-continent within whole vision of secularisation of minds and upholding democratic spirit. Regional disarmament, here, comes from within, as a concern of people of sub-continent, rather than statement of 'external relations' of India and Pakistan and others. And needs active and continuous engagement in cultural intervention and communication by secular forces in both the countries.

While organising a five-day convention and festival on secular cultural action (28 Dec 98- 1 Jan 99) in the Indian capital New Delhi to commemorate tenth anniversary of late Safdar Hashmi under theme DASTAK, SAHMAT had devoted a half-day session on Nuclear Disarmament. Editor monthly Frontline N. Ram chaired this session. Also, present on the stage were Admiral (retired) Ramdas of the Indian Navy, Zia Mian a Pakistani scientist based in Princeton University, Praful Bidwai a notable columnist-peace activist and T. Jayaraman an Indian physicist. The audience comprised of secular groups and individuals not only from all around India, but also from the entire south Asia. Their disciplines ranged from various performing and visual arts, academics, social sciences, media, literature to cultural, social and political activism broadly engaged in the two themes of communal harmony and freedom of expression. A team of Journalists Resource Centre- led by senior journalist Aziz Mazhar, and other notables from Pakistan participated in the convention. There were delegations from Indian immigrant communities in the USA, Canada and Uk etc. as well. 

"We need to address real issues that confront our common people and not the magical sense of security" and national defences, argued Admiral (Retired) Ramdas of Indian Navy. He stressed to adopt secular approach to this issue: "More the people are knowledgeable, so much is better rather than they are misinformed of the nuclear facts and are made to driven to fiction. ZA Bhutto's nuclear impulse, in this hazy situation, becomes communal bomb, and outside India, they say the Indian one as Hindu bomb. So much mystery has been clouted around that strategically and politically no one exactly knows what will happen and whose stupid thinking can result into another Hiroshima.

Admiral Ramdas maintained that ideas of minimum deterrence, first/second/return strikes were outmoded and these theories had come out of mere imagination, only to prolong non-issues. "The only thing" he observed, is the will to resolve issues between India and They can be solved militarily and politically but with statesman's minds not of politician's. Possible action would be to bridge between Pakistan and India, and an exchange of nuclear data".

On Siachin, he proposed to place the same spirit on top and asked to: "Put your flags where you are now. Just agree on where we already are. During the transition period, talk on table. Maintain the status on until a sensible resolve will be presented. Or, otherwise the phenomenal cost on non-issues will continue to hamper both countries' ordinary people. Once the process in on, we (Indians) could replicate this with China as well.

Zia Mian stressed to shift the tone of this discussion to more moral and human than its technical aspects. He said that the question is never posed in moral terms: "The reality of nuclear weapons is presented in the language of security, strategy and technology. In this discourse there are only reason and numbers, not the reality that is kept dull and detached in linguistic framework of global power. Language here is stripped of its feelings and morality in turn becomes the first causality of nuclear weapons. It was polluted, when the American inventors of nuclear bomb simply called it "Gadget', as if they were not talking of the most destructive weapon that had ever been made. The bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were called 'little boy' and 'Fat man'. USSR, Britain, France, China and India followed this distortion by calling their bombs respectively as the 'Article', 'Hurricane', 'Blue Mouse', 'Device 596' and, ironically the 'Smiling Buddha'. Mian quoted psychologist Robert Jay Lifton to illustrate this labeling as 'nuclear numbering', the process by which 'we domesticate these weapons in our language and attitudes. Rather than feel their malignant actuality, we render them benign'.

He saw the explosions as unethical and unthinkable that is attributed to genocidal mentality: " they have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to commit nuclear mass murder." 

Mian revealed that the first reference of nuclear debate among Pakistani policy makers is traced back in the sixties. Interestingly, this programme was seen then as deterrence against China, within the US containment policy around China. Under this US policy, hundreds of Pakistani and Indian scientists were trained, and the first builders of atomic bomb became their models of 'scientific achievement'. US poured money on these studies programmes. This breed of scientists was so dependent upon US that now it has become clear that they pressurised the government to build such arsenal. It is on record that they tried to test earlier in the 80's but "were not permitted to do."

He negated Pakistani claim of 6 tests and told that no evidence is found beyond a maximum of 2 tests. He maintained that he and other colleagues found the Pakistani claim was four times bigger than actually happened. He also rejected what he called the 'tactical manoeuvre of Pakistani establishment where they project their complete control over nuclear weapons. He cited May 1997's example when an Indian plane entered into Pakistani boundary and broke the sound barriers. He said that Pakistani systems of electricity and railways etc. have time and again failed, so how could they are not prone to loose control of nuclear bomb systems. Also, jet fighters crash regularly in On the contrary, super powers have developed safety programmes to check the threats of these bombs.

Mian described Pakistani perceptions to link the bomb with Kashmir, conventional weapons and with communal politics within Stakes are much higher than the sought after excuses even if met with results, he said, the mindset behind bomb building is not going to give up despite health and environment hazards on the country. In 1996, the 500 or so workers at the Dera Ghazi Khan nuclear plant went on strike for demanding safety measures. Moreover one is not sure of how much money this nuclear programme eats up, for the official secrecy of this.  On the other hand Pakistan has slipped from number 0 in 1992 to 139 in 1997 and is now below India in terms of its Human Development Index (HDI), Mian added.

He concluded on the note that it is only by engaging in nuclear in nuclear disarmament, and so demonstrating that relations with India are not being interpreted as issues of life and death for the nation. Only then it will become possible to debate military spending.

The next speaker Praful Bidwai called these bombs as a crime against humanity and that its possession was immoral. India, he said, has embraced the mentality to destroy, and that it depraves any sense of security. Today millions are in danger of Chagi/Pokhran bombs and now 'we have been isolated from the 'global south'. In fact there is no security threat to India. BJP's foreign policy stands independent of security environment. They are raising slogans to 'unite the Hindu and militarise' for their extremist dreams of Hindu state and Hinduism. A new kind of paranoid is being built which is based on exclusion. He told that it was Jan Sangh's manifesto in 1951 that demanded an Indian atomic bomb for the first time. 

Nevertheless, Bidwai was fairly optimist. He talked about the positive change in the international area where Agenda Coalition Countries comprising of 8 states i. e. South Africa, Argentina, Egypt, Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland and Slovenia have come out, and formed their group with a view to freeze and eliminate atomic weapons' development. South Africa has already destroyed half of its programme. Besides, 61 admirals and Army Generals have given a statement against these arms. On every count; as impacts and implications, scientific dimension, policy question, real and pragmatist dimension and as a question of national security they should have no place in civilised society. These weapons are nonviable, he asserted: "The Principle issue is political, and the moral responsibility of weapons." 

T. Jayaraman spoke of the quick response from Indian leftist groups against the Indo-Pak explosions. He also cited examples of 3 former Indian Prime ministers' protest, Dev Gowda's letter and 300 physics scientists' statement against weapons. A very visible Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/MIND 3) has already been launched.

After the speeches, the house was invited to discuss the issue. Here, Prof. Jayati Ghosh was called on the rostrum to share her study on the costs of atomic bomb. She presented some horrible data to show how these weapons are screwing national budgets [An independent box has been given to show the extent of these figures at the end of this report]. She told that the cost of the nuclear weapon itself might not be very high; however the cost of the system as a whole was alarming. More significant costs relate to the delivery systems. About the secrecy of nuclear costs and unavailability of data, she inferred that India has followed to develop its nuclear and missile capabilities in which the civilian programme has been used to underwrite the military programme. She remarked sarcastically that BJP hates every thing Videshi (foreign) but its love for nukes bears a critical long-term loss, and that is of economic independence and sovereignty of India.
In this discussion a participant connected South Asian states' policy with imperial past and its political formations. There was also talk of a massive campaign on disarmament and peace issues, which required communication in all the regional language: "We have yet to reach the common people, in their languages not in the elite language that's English." It was remarked that consensus is found among political establishment about security issues in sub-continent. However, the euphoria after explosions was short-lived and not successful was also raised. A Jamia Millia Professor emphasised the need to activate kinship relations among hundred of thousands of people living in India and Pakistan, to promote peace cause between the both. 
Three hours session on Nuclear Disarmament was concluded on an announcement that a long march would lead to the sands of Pokhran in Rajastan between 11 May to 6 August of 1999.