Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Posts Tagged India

British Colonialism and How India and Pakistan Lost Freedom by Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D.

British Colonialism and How India and Pakistan Lost Freedom

Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D.

Irony of Historic National Freedom and Unspoken Tyranny of Imperialism

29 Dec 2021 – Do nations and civilizations grow out of the moral mire of military conquests, killings of innocent people, political cruelty and subjugation by imperialism? For more than 800 years, India as a Moghul Empire was an economically well-integrated and politically viable entity and European maintained strong commerce, trade and political relationships.  After intrigued conspiracies and planned division, the British invaded India in 1857, committing cold-blooded massacres of two million people mostly Muslims opposing the military invasion described just as a “Mutiny” in the British chronicle. Bahadur Shah Zafar – the last Moghul emperor was deposed overnight in Delhi, his youngest son’s head was chopped off and put on a breakfast plate to strangle the Shah and make him surrender unconditionally.  Shah was hurriedly taken to Rangoon (Burma) and imprisoned in a garage and later on died and was buried only to write poems in loss of his freedom and beloved country.  Did the British overtake India to be a free country for democracy or to support the Hindu domination of futuristic India?  British robbed Moghul India and looted its wealth and heritage to become Great Britain and imagined India as an absolute entity of the British Empire.

Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Dr Mohammad Iqbal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Khan though educated in British intellectual traditions but articulated new missions and visions for national freedom as a revulsion against the British colonial political traditions and continuity of the British Raj in India. Was this violent and ruthless indoctrination part of the British heritage or history-making efforts to besiege India forever?  Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy made sure that Indians will remain loyal and committed subservient to the futuristic blending of so-called celebrated national freedom after the 1947 partition into India and Pakistan. British by design failed to deliver the truth of national freedom to both nations in a universal spirit of political responsibility. Hindu mythology believes in “Mahabharata” (Greater India) and teaches school children that Pakistan and Afghanistan are part of the “Mahabharata” plan. Ironically, Hindus practise a caste system denying human equality in public life, whereas, Islam teaches the unity of mankind offering equality to all. The successive states of India-Pakistan both betrayed the reality of equal human rights and participation in governance.

History could not have confined the tyranny and oppression of “divide and rule of British imperialism against the will of the Indian masses. Canons of rationality clarify that national freedom granted to both new entities in August 1947 was a fake chronology of time and history. The so-called national freedom perpetuated a hybrid socio-economic and political culture – part human- part vulture, British made no security arrangements to ensure communal peace and harmony which resulted in millions of people being killed in ethnic violence while migrating from one place to another.

Tormented by injustice, public discord and political lethargy, British imperialism changed the Indian mindset and behaviour within a century, but India and Pakistan even after 75 years remained glued to the British colonial systems in thoughts, systems and governance. Does it not signal a naïve and void imagination of national freedom professed by both nations since 1947?  They continue to interact with one another as the most hated enemy of time and history, wars, the threat of nuclear arsenals, the Kashmir dispute and worst of all lack of direct people-to-people communication or business relationships – all seem to be part of a highly ruptured and purging pursuit of national freedom.

 Indian and Pakistani Leaders Follow Egoistic Agenda for the Future

The aerial view of New Delhi reflects an Islamic image of the city – Grand New Delhi Mosque, nearby historic and beautiful Taj Mahal, Old Fort and a lot more. The first book ever written on India was “Kitab-al-Hind” (Book on India) by Abu Raihan Al-Brunei – a 10th-century Muslim scholar. Under the Moghul Empire, Delhi was one of the most intellectually and economically advanced progressive capitals. To foreigners, it does not look like the capital of Hindu India at all. If this inference has any reality, the future of India and Pakistan should have been a collaboration and lasting friendship. India always wanted to subdue Pakistan and its national freedom.

Pakistan’s bad luck entailed many military coups breaking its integrity and trust in freedom. Egoistic and foolish Generals created bogus and corrupt politicians claiming to be the leaders of future-making. They lacked the moral and intellectual capacity to imagine their future with a new generation of educated, intelligent and proactive people who could have contributed to a promising future for Pakistan. Most pernicious consequences defy logic as most Indian and Pakistani elite lack intellectual foresight to connect national freedom to a continuous movement for the greater cause of nation-building. Despite the political independence in 1947, the nation-building goal was forgotten and lost in the symbolic values of national identity.

India’s political agenda was intact when in December 1971, East Pakistan disintegrated and Bangladesh was created by Mrs Indra Gandhi –the Prime Minister – a power conspirator in India. Pakistani governing elite would not dare to admit that it was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Genera Yahya Khan both major conspirators who led to the defeat of Pakistan. Even half a century later, Pakistanis still live in the delusional and unarguable conclusions of that historic misfortune.  As a graduate student, I met General PNK Choudry (the former Chief of the Indian Armed Forces) arbitrarily retired by Mrs Indra Gandhi and sent as an Ambassador (HC) to Canada. At a local university campus, we met when he was a guest speaker. Later on, I invited him for a class gathering with fellow students and lunch. During the summer while working at a photo store, General Choudry comes in with two cameras on his shoulder and many times we had lunch together and walked and photographed together.

On weekends, at the university library- often I got library books to share with him and we talked about global affairs and his past and India-Pakistan. He denied any alleged conspiracy against Mrs Gandhi to oust her and bring a military coup in India. My interaction with General Choudry continued for almost two years. After his diplomatic assignment, he was hired by McGill University, Montreal as a lecturer and that is where he died in 1975. He was a simple, 6.5 ft approx tall person, humble and spoke openly and truthfully as I recall him. As an Indian top army Genera,l he may have been a tyrant but as a human being and a diploma, the was a decent person. He fought wars with Pakistan and knew most of the military establishments. Here is what he disclosed during many conversations and it should be alarming to Pakistanis if they deny it:

ZA Bhutto andSheikhh Mujib Were Appointed by Mrs Indira Gandhi  Beforeo the defeat and surrender of East Pakistan in 1971, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had direct contact with Mrs Gandhi and wanted India’s help to become the next leader of Pakistan. India was looking for such an opportunity and wanted East Pakistan to become a new entity- Bangladesh. Sheikh Mujib Rehman was a nationalist and enthusiastic about a new homeland except to become the next elected leader of Pakistan. Bhutto-Yahya Khanwase competing for power even without elections. Sheikh Mujib’s Awami Party won the majority of seats in the 1971 elections of the National Assembly to be a legitimately elected leader of Pakistan. The inept and naïve Pakistani Generals had questions about Mujib’s futuristic intentions and delayed the peaceful transfer of power.  ZA Bhutto (Peoples Party) carved up his egoistic agenda for grabbing the political power even if Pakistan was defeated, otherwise,e Sheikh Mujib-Yahya could have become the next governing leader. Bhutto was a power-hungry individual without any political capacity to be a leader. Mrs. Gandhi helped both – ZA Bhutto and Sheikh Mujib and the price was the defeat and surrender of Pakistan. Mrs. Gandhi appointed Bhutto as the next President, Martial Law Administrator and Prime Minister of Pakistan and Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman as the next President of Bangladesh.  Some Pakistani would blame General Niazi for the surrender but in reality,y it was Yahya-Bhutto and the Pakistani Generals who should have faced full accountability and perhaps fired squads for their treachery and dishonesty to the national freedom and integrity of Pakistan. The lessons of history are ignored as Pakistani politics lacks accountability. To see more, please view the articles by this author:  “Pakistan: Leaders who Stabbed the Nation” (2009), “Pakistan: Leader or Criminals.” (2014); “Pakistan: Reflections on the Turbulent 69th Independence Day”, “Pakistan: How to Change the Culture of Political Corruption and Rebuild the Future.” (2014), and “Pakistan and India’s leader mark freedom from British Colonial Rule but Masses look for a Navigational Change.” (2020).

To General Choudry, if the whole of Pakistan was captured by India except for the Sindh province, ZA Bhutto would have gladly become the Chief Minister of Sindh to co-exist with India.  He disclosed, that there were five or six soft-hearted” Pakistani Generals willing to align and not to challenge India’s plan for Bangladesh.  General Yahya Khan and Bhutto were highly individualistic and morally corrupt. Mrs. Gandhi had daily briefings where Yahya and Bhutto held cocktail parties and slept with prostitutes.  Shocking as it is, future Pakistani leaders never held anyone accountable for the crimes against the nation. Were ZA Bhutto and Yahya Khan more important than the existence, national freedom and integrity of One Pakistan? Dr. Ishtiaq Qureshi (Editor Urdu Digest) wrote “Skoote –Dahaka Say Purdah Uttha Hey” (1972), in which he described the details of how Bhutto and Yahya Khan betrayed Pakistan and stabbed the nation. Dr Qureshi was imprisoned by the Bhutto government. This dreadful tragedy infallibly resulted to question the very basis of the originality of Pakistan and remains unacknowledged and districted by the Pakistani political elite even to this day. Are the Pakistanis still living in any rational denials of their chapter of history?

Moral and intellectual corruption is rampant in both countries. Masses are systematically compelled to bribe officials to get the basic services and official necessities of nationality ID, passports, driver’s license and a lot more in life. National freedom has changed from the enlarged scope of corruption and exploitation – the legacy of British imperialism. BothIndiana and Pakistani neo-colonialists look for an escape from reality and are allergic to seeing the mirror of the present and future. Allama Iqbal (pioneer of Pakistani national freedom) did not live to see his dream come true in Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu extremist, and  Nehru died a natural death.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah passed away in a broken ambulance on a Karachi street, and Liaquat Ali Khan (first PM) was murdered by the then Pakistani politicians. Mrs. Indra Gandhi was killed by his Sikh bodyguard as revenge for the Indian armed attack on Sikh Golden Temple, Amritsar; Sheikh Mujib was murdered by his military commander and Bhutto was hanged for killing a political opponent. Both nations failed to produce proactive and intelligent leaders to usher in political change. Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu Janta Party and Prime Minister believes in Hinduvata domination of the sub-continent, Pakistani could not produce any leaders except Bhutto, Ms Bhutto, Zardari, Sharif and General Musharaf –conspirators and gangsters who stole wealth and committed heinous crimes and bought palaces in Europe to enjoy life.

Is There any Glimpse of Hope for People-Oriented Change for the New Generations?

India has multiple problems of socio-economic and political diversity. It is unable to counteract the national freedom movement of the Sikh Nation for an independent Khalistan. Kashmir was never a part of British Indian dominion and its masses continue to seek freedom from India’s occupation and violations of their basic human rights. Muslim, Christian and other minorities are oppressed underHinduvata-managed India claiming to be a secular and democratic country. The Hindu Janata Party under the current PM is committed to making India a Hindutiva State regardless of other nationalities and identities. Pakistani miserably failed to take proactive initiatives to support the freedom movement for the people of Kashmir. The old service men-led elite could not imagine new and creative strategies to organize international conferences or effectively communicate to the Western world to share the aspirations of the Kashmiri masses.

The degeneration of the Indian-Pakistani moral and intellectual culture is well in progress. The essence, meaning and purpose of historic British colonial systems are operative across all public affairs, policies and practices in India and Pakistan. The armed forces, the civil service and legal jurisprudence all remain under the sinister influence and disfigured reality of the two so-called free nations. Police still beats the protesters and open fire on peaceful demonstrators, be in New Delhi, Kashmir or Islamabad. National freedom does not empower futuristic societies to establish political absurdity, immoral and intellectual decadence and political injustice. Common people in both countries are besieged by obsolete systems of political governance except rich landlords and the affluent compete in the elections and gain power.

There is no charge for the people in the colonized landscape exceptthe enlarged scope of moral and intellectual corruption used as freedom. If you will question both elites having many common values of the British Raj, they would deny if there is anything wrong with their thinking, role play and management of public affairs. The new and young generation who could not imagine a new sustainable future vanishing fast and migrating to Europe and America in search of better opportunities. The old generations of landlords and retired civilian-military officials manage the governing bodies whereas people of the new and educated generation are deprived of any practical participation and migrate to Europe and North America and never return to their home countries.

The hub of political culture is divided and delusional about national freedom and sustainable future-making. There are no wars for the people of the sub-continent to fight but they are fighting wars on several fronts without reason- known and unknown. The compelling realities across the beleaguered sub-continent demand new thinking, new visionary leadership, men of new ideas and plans to deal with the unwarranted exploitation of masses, communal deaths, and deliberate destruction of the historic culture and millions of people looking for a change and a new beginning of cordial borders and relationships.

______________________________________Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international relations-global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest book: Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution: Approaches to Understand the Current Issues and Future-Making, Lambert Academic Publications, Germany, 2017.


Tags: British Colonialism, History, India, Pakistan, UK

, , , ,

No Comments

India Towards False Flag Operation-Pulwama-II By Sajjad Shaukat

India Towards False Flag Operation-Pulwama-II

By

Sajjad Shaukat

 

Pakistan’s civil and military leaders are repeatedly pointing out that India is planning another false flag operation against Pakistan in order to divert attention from its internal issues and failure of external policy.

 

In this regard, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on June 23, this year: “India is hiding its face after facing humiliation defeat by China…the officials of Indian High Commission in Islamabad should be readied to leave the country if Pakistani diplomatic staff are expelled by New Delhi…Indian authorities levelled baseless allegations against the officials of Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi and the country was finding excuses to stage a false flag operation…the foreign ministry has categorically rejected the allegations levelled by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and termed it as an attempt to divert attention from its state terrorism in occupied Jammu and Kashmir…The world is witnessing the Islamophobia in India besides observing the discriminatory actions against Muslims and minorities. BJP had grabbed electoral victory by propagating against Pakistan. The ruling political party in India had faced defeat in five states before staging a drama in the name of Pulwama attack…Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Contact rejected the illegal moves of India in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, whereas, and the international community has also considered New Delhi as a risk to the regional peace… the Indian government will get the same response from Pakistan”.

 

It is notable that, on May 5, this year, drastic tensions arose between India and China, taking both the countries to the edge of war.

 

In response to India’s construction of roads and airstrips adjacent to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which will improve connectivity and enable easier mobility for Indian troops in the area, thousands of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops moved into the regions along the eastern Ladakh border, setting up tents and stationing vehicles and heavy machinery.

 

Reports confirmed that the Indian army has moved several battalions from an infantry division usually based in the Ladakh city of Leh to “operational alert areas” along the border.

 

In this respect, Chinese official newspaper Global Times wrote: “The latest border friction was a planned move by New Delhi…India in recent days has illegally constructed defence facilities across the border into Chinese territory in the Galwan Valley region, leaving Chinese border defence troops no other options but making necessary moves in response, and mounting the risk of escalating standoffs and conflicts between the two sides.”

Read More

In this connection, a storm sparked in India by the contradictory statement, issued by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on JUNE 19, 2020 that nobody had intruded across the Indian frontier in eastern Ladakh continued to swirl on June 20, with a clarification issued by his office leading to more questioning by the Opposition—at the meeting Modi had said: “Neither has anyone intruded into our frontier, nor is anyone present there, nor are any of our posts under someone else’s occupation.”

 

The Congress said that the government has failed in clarifying, if Chinese troops were present on Indian territories.

India and China held military-level talks on June 6, 2020 to resolve the current border issue in eastern Ladakh peacefully. But, a Colonel-rank officer and 20 soldiers of the Indian Army were killed and almost 76 injured in a violent face-off with Chinese troops in the Galwan Valley area of Ladakh on June 15, this year. More than 90 Indian soldiers are missing. India also concealed this news and afterwards admitted when Beijing disclosed the incident.

 

In this context, on June 19, 2020, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian released a statement that gave Beijing’s “step by step” version of the events which led to the Galwan valley scuffle. Besides Indian casualties in the physical hand-to-hand fight with Chinese troops on June 8, the statement added: “China Won’t allow any unilateral change of Line of Actual Control…India is violating the understanding reached on June 6…India had even demolished its facilities, but they again returned on June 15 leading to the clash”.

 

For face-saving, New Delhi also contacted Russia to play its mediatory role to settle the India-China border tensions. In this respect, a trilateral meeting was held among the foreign ministers of India, China and Russia on June 23, 2020 through video conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar stated that recognising the “legitimate interests of partners”, along with respecting international law, is key to building a durable world order.

 

In a press release, Chinese foreign ministry stated that the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed that “China, Russia and India, as large countries that adhere to strategic autonomy, should grasp the overall cooperative situation of the three countries…starting from the common interests of helping the three countries to develop and revitalise and safeguard world peace, correctly treat and properly handle the sensitive factors existing in bilateral relations and safeguard the overall situation of mutual relations”.

 

Speaking to the media, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov ruled out the possibility of Moscow acting as a mediator between India and China by elaborating: “I see no reason that Russia or anyone else would be imposing their services on India and China in order to solve their own problems…They can solve them on their own”.

 

In fact, as part of anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim policies, PM Modi, the ruling party BJP-led, RSS and VHP are acting upon the ideology of Hindutva ((Hindu Nationalism). Their various malicious moves such as abrogation of the special status of the Jummu and Kashmir to turn Muslim majority into minority, continued lockdown in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK), martyrdom of thousands of the Kashmiris there, introduction of new domicile law against the majority of Kashmiris to completely end any sort of dialogue with Islamabad to settle the Kashmir issue, persecution of religious minorities especially Muslims, anti-Muslim laws-CAA/NRC, assaults on Muslims by the fanatic Hindus, blaming Indian Muslims and Pakistan for spreading coronavirus etc., and intermittent shelling inside Pakistani side of Kashmir in relation to the Line of Control (LoC) are notable.

It is mentionable that implementing the August 5 announcement of 2019, Indian central government had issued a map on October 31, 2019. In accordance with it, Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two union territories—Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and identifies Pakistani side of Azad Kashmir as well as certain areas of Gilgit-Baltistan as an Indian territory.

 

Both Islamabad and Beijing had rejected this political map regarding the disputed territories.

 

Besides, India has escalated tensions with Islamabad particularly in the aftermath of the false flag terror attack at Pulwama-IOK. In this respect, on February 27, last year, in response to the Indian so-called pre-emptive air strike near the town of Balakot, close to the border with Pakistan’s sector of Kashmir, Pakistan Air Force (PAF) shot down two Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter jets and launched aerial strikes at six targets in the IOK.

 

Meanwhile, in the recent past, India’s Home Minister Shri Amit Shah threatened of conducting air and surgical strikes inside Pakistani territory.

 

Reacting to Amit Shah’s statement, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi stated: “Let me make it clear to Amit Shah that if India made the mistake, we will give a befitting response…Amit Shah should tell…Why does India not launch a surgical strike on Laddakh?…India has reached the extreme in committing atrocities in Kashmir…India wants to sabotage the Afghan peace process…New Delhi is threatening Pakistan to divert attention from its internal situation”.

 

Earlier, during an interview with a renowned TV channel on June 3, 2020, DG of ISPR) Maj-General Babar stated, “Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa warned India…[saying] We will respond any aggression with full might…Prime Minister Imran Khan and Chief of Army have said that India was planning false flag operation…Pulwama-II…India faced great humiliation in the recent military standoff with China…faced embarrassment in map issues with Nepal as well…India is facing many internal challenges especially after the emergence of coronavirus…many issues have emerged in India after the August 5, 2019 move, which revoked the special status of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir…There is an emergence of Islamophobia in India. Now they [India] think the best way is to divert the attention towards Pakistan…The situation on the LoC…1229 ceasefire violations by India have been committed since start of this year…while their quadcopters have also violated airspace [of Pakistan] on different occasions”.

 

However, in order to divert attention from internal crises, New Delhi can arrange another Pulwama-like false flag terror attack in the Indian Held Kashmir to justify military adventure against Pakistan.

 

It is of particular attention that India’s preplanned drama has been proved even by Indian media on January 12, this year. In this regard, Indian media disclosed that “Deputy Superintendent (DSP) Davinder Singh was caught along with two militants, Jammu Kashmir Police (JKP) on Sunday [January 12, 2020]…Davinder Singh was alleged to have been ferrying the militants from the Shopian area of the Valley. Five grenades and three AK-47 rifles were also recovered from the cop’s residence…DSP was under surveillance for the past two months over suspicious activities”.

 

But, Indian intelligence and investigating agencies were hiding the reality about Davinder Singh and other two militants, which indicated that India may be setting a stage for new drama to associate the Police Officer with Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. Hence, a New Delhi court on June 19, this year granted bail to suspended DSP Davinder Singh.

 

Nevertheless, Pakistan’s civil and military leadership has repeatedly informed the international community about India’s another Pulwama-type false flag operation-Pulwama-II to involve Islamabad and to conduct another military adventure in the Pakistani side of Kashmir. And Pakistan’s response will result into a conventional war between the two countries, which may culminate into nuclear war, enveloping the entire region. Same is the case between India and China in Ladakh, as the border issue has not still been resolved.

 

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

                                                  

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

 

, ,

No Comments

India;s Insecure Nuclear Programme, Threatening Regional and Global Peace By Sajjad Shaukat

India’s Insecure Nuclear Programme, Threatening Regional and Global Peace

By Sajjad Shaukat

 

 

In its report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) disclosed on 18, this year that an estimated 110-130 Indian nuclear bombs are stored in six or so government-run sites across India. Within the next five years to one decade, as many as 60 reactors will also be functional in India with the active cooperation of the US-led western and far eastern allies.

 

In the past, several incidents of leakage and theft in addition to alarming episodes of lax security on existing nuclear sites given a history of civil tumult have occurred in India. India is notorious for highly lax security of its nuclear facilities. The episode of 8 October 2014 at Kalpakkam, when a soldier of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) responsible for protecting nuclear materials, went on a rampage to destroy the security of the facility leading to nuclear material theft by criminals. Many incidents in the past including theft and leakage incidents of 2003, 2008, 2009 and 2013 are alarming examples of what inside and outside officials depict as serious short-comings in India’s nuclear safeguards.

 

India and Japan have a terrible record of nuclear reactor leakage due to various reasons which consequently proved disastrous. But, Indian poor nuclear security has broken all the records.

 

Indian media reported on July 5, this year that the Kolkata police have arrested five men with 1 kg of uranium valued at around Rs. 3 crores ($440,000).

 

The Times of India elaborated that the men had come to Kolkata in the state of West Bengal to try to sell the substance. Police was quoted as saying that two packets of a “yellow-coloured substance” were seized.

 

It is notable that when the US former President Barack Obama hosted the fourth Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on March 31, 2016 to check the spread of nuclear weapons, showing concerns about the ambitions of terrorist groups such as the ISIS in acquiring a nuclear weapon or radioactive material, , the US President Donald Trump had taken a different stand in his interview with the CNN by stating, “More nuclear weapons could make the world safer…US can no longer afford to bankroll the defence of its allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East…Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia may need arsenals to confront threats in their region on their own.”

 

Similarly, by pursuing the double standards of America and some Western countries in its worst form, President Trump also favoured India, while opposing the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. Because, being the only nuclear country in the Islamic World, Pakistan annoys the US, Israel and some Western countries. It is Zionist agenda to ‘denculearise’ Pakistan. However, like Obama, Trump has brushed aside the ground realities that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi led by the ruling fundamentalist party BJP has been implementing anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan agenda.

 

 

 

 

As part of their double game, these US-led countries have ignored poor Indian record of nuclear security, non-proliferation, lack of safety of workers, working at Indian nuclear facilities and lack of any appropriate regulatory authority.

 

Indian record proves various kinds of security and safety lapses regarding various nuclear plants and the related sensitive materials, including events of leakage, nuclear theft, smuggling and killing.

 

In this regard, in November 2009, more than 90 Indian workers suffered radiation due to contamination of drinking water at the Kaiga Atomic Power Station in Karnataka.

 

On July 27, 1991, a similar event occurred at the heavy water plant run by the Department of Atomic Energy at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan. Nuclear radiation had affected and injured many labourers there.

 

In July 1998, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seized eight Kg. of nuclear material from three engineers in Chennai, which was stolen from an atomic research centre.

 

On November 7, 2000, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) disclosed that Indian police had seized 57 pounds of uranium and arrested two men for illicit trafficking of radioactive material. IAEA had revealed that Indian civil nuclear facilities were vulnerable to thefts.

 

On January 26, 2003, CNN pointed out that Indian company, NEC Engineers Private Ltd. shipped ten consignments to Iraq, containing highly sensitive equipment entailing titanium vessels and centrifugal pumps.

 

In December 2006, a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.

 

In June 2009, India’s nuclear scientist, Lokanathan Mahalingam missed from the scenario and after a couple of days; his dead body was recovered from the Kali River. Indian police concocted a story that Mahalingam had committed suicide by jumping into the river. It is a big joke to hide some real facts behind his death because wisdom proves that if an educated person decides to commit suicide, he will adopt a soft way to eliminate his life. Afterwards, Dr Haleema Saadia said that the death of the scientist was a conspiracy.

 

Nevertheless, such events in connection with nuclear material continued unabated in India, putting the security of atomic weapons and their related components, including the lives of workers at high risk.

 

It is mentionable that during his first visit to New Delhi, on November 6, 2010. President Obama announced the measures, America would take regarding removal of Indian space and defence companies from a restricted “entities list”, and supported Indian demand membership of four critical global nuclear nonproliferation regimes.

 

And as part of the double standards about India and Pakistan, America set aside the poor Indian record regarding the safety of nuclear weapons and related materials. Despite, Indian violations of various international agreements and its refusal to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Additional Protocol with the IAEA, Washington signed a pact of civil nuclear technology with New Delhi in 2008. During American

President Barack Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and India announced a breakthrough on the pact which would allow American companies to supply New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.

 

Notably, America is a potential military supplier to India. The US also pressurised IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant a waiver to New Delhi for obtaining civil nuclear trade on a larger scale.

 

Evidence indicates that India has not fulfilled the conditions of the NSG waiver. At least, eight of India’s nuclear reactors are outside safeguards which are a big question mark on the credibility of its nuclear safety and security standards. Two reports from the King’s College–respectively titled ‘India’s Nuclear Exceptionalism’ and ‘India’s Strategic Nuclear and Missile Programs’ also claim that India has already accumulated nuclear material for over 2600 nuclear weapons, including all of its unsafeguarded reactor-grade plutonium, which is weapon-usable, and raised concerns over this stockpiling.

 

In fact, in the pretext of countering China, Washington has continued favouring India’s programme of advancement and modernisation of nuclear weapons. The US supports the Indian nuclear programme in the guise of anti-China and anti-Pakistan approach. Beijing is apprehensive about the emerging threat, as, during the last visit of Obama to New Delhi, the intent of President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Modi was quite clear while mentioning about free sea lanes and air passages in the South China Sea. President Trump is also pursuing the policy of his predecessor in this respect, as in the recent past, during his meeting with Prime Minister Modi, he showed a similar approach.

 

Nonetheless, arms deals with America, which also include nuclear submarines to New Delhi, would increase Indian hegemonic designs in the region. And NSG’s membership in India will create concerns for regional strategic stability.

 

Besides obtaining atomic weapons from the US and other Western countries, New Delhi is, clandestinely, importing nuclear arms, components and submarines from Tel Aviv. In this connection, Zionist-led Indo-Israeli secret diplomacy could be assessed from the interview of Israel’s ambassador to India, Mark Sofer, published in the Indian weekly Outlook on February 18, 2008. Regarding India’s defence arrangements with Tel Aviv, Sofer had surprisingly revealed, “We do have a defence relationship with India, and “with all due respect, the secret part will remain a secret.”

 

Although these atomic weapons seem to be mysterious, yet still could be within reach of some Hindu terrorists with the help of RAW which might have also got these destructive arms from Mossad. Such atomic weapons or radiological materials could have also been smuggled inside India by the Hindu fundamentalists with the covert assistance of RAW.

Frustrated in isolating Islamabad, RAW in connivance with Mossad might have prepared a most dangerous plan to use nuclear weapons or dirty nuclear bombs inside the US homeland or any major European country to implicate Pakistan for having allegedly used these weapons through some Taliban militants.

 

Mainly, RAW and Mossad may also employ these lethal weapons against NATO forces in Afghanistan, as India and Israel want to prolong the stay of the US-led NATO troops in Afghanistan which have become the centre of their covert activities against Pakistan, Russia, China and Iran. RAW and Mossad may use terrorists of the Islamic State outfit (Also known as Daesh, ISIS and ISIL) which are strategic assets of the CIA for employment of these unconventional weapons. While, India, Israel and America are also playing double game against one another, hence, by utilizing the vicious circle of terrorism, New Delhi can alone use these weapons through Afghanistan-based Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and ISIS which are also being backed by RAW, CIA and Mossad, and have claimed responsibility for several terror assaults inside Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the recent ones. So, RAW’s sole aim will be to provoke Americans and its allies against Islamabad which is challenging Indian hegemony in the region. Thus, Indian RAW could create a dangerous misunderstanding in which the US could use small nuclear weapons against Pakistan or could ask the latter of rollback its atomic programme.

 

Undoubtedly, in such an environment, considering India qualified for acquiring of nuclear technology through “global powers” led NSG and IAEA and obstructing Pakistan’s safe nuclear energy programme is discriminatory as well as an effort to hinder peace and economic progress of Pakistan. And hazardous materials in nuclear facilities patrolled by low morale CISF troops across India are also liable to be stolen by insiders having grievances against employers and typical Hindu mindset of Indian leadership. Indian sponsored ISIS elements could use these stolen materials. Washington and its other allies, instead of pressing India for quick nuclear reforms are encouraging India to expand its nuclear stockpiles. The US-led West need to take cognisance of such ventures rather than criticising Pak-China civil nuclear cooperation.

 

In light of these adverse developments, we can conclude that Indian insecure nuclear programme is threatening regional and global peace. Therefore, the world’s various forums such as EU and UNO, including Russia should also take cognisance of New Delhi in this regard.

 

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is the author of the book: the US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

 

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Additional Readings

How vulnerable are India’s nuclear power plants to disaster

 
Last Updated: Thursday 17 September 2015

earthquack

Nuclear power plants are designed to withstand natural disasters like earthquakes. In France, for instance, nuclear plants are designed to withstand an earthquake twice as strong as that experienced in the past 1,000 years. In India, the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Tarapur Atomic Power Station and Narora Atomic Power Station operated safely when earthquakes of lower intensity were felt. The plants, however, could not withstand a tsunami. The campus of Kalpakkam Atomic Reprocessing Plant was flooded when the tsunami hit Tamil Nadu’s coast in 2004.

Catch-22 situation

In India, every region falls in the seismic zone in some way, said Durgesh Rai of IIT Kanpur. “Most of our nuclear plants are in weak seismic zones but lie in coastal areas. Their structure is earthquake-resistant but they have not been tested against tsunami. The entire coastal region is believed to be vulnerable to tsunami,” he said. Nuclear plants are built near the sea because sea water is required to cool the reactor.

What happened during the Fukushima incident in Japan

The power plant survived the earthquake and was shut down. Limits are set on the levels of velocity, acceleration and displacement in every power plant. The plant stopped functioning when the limits exceeded. The atomic reaction thus stopped. When the plant stopped functioning, seawater used to cool the reactor stopped flowing. The diesel generators that were to feed water to the power plant also apparently shut down. Thus, the cores began to heat up.

Though the fission of radioactive elements was stopped, some reactions continued generating a great deal of heat. Without cooling, the temperature rose, boiling off the remaining water and increasing pressure leading to an explosion.

The plant that survived an earthquake earlier in Japan 

In 1995, the Kobe-Osaka earthquake did not affect the nuclear power plant just 110 km from Kobe. After the 7.2 magnitude earthquake, a panel was set up to review the safety of nuclear facilities in Japan and design guidelines for their construction. The Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) approved the panel’s report. After recalculating the seismic design criteria required for a nuclear power plant to survive near the epicentre of an earthquake of high intensity, the NSC concluded that under current guidelines the plant could survive a 7.75 magnitude quake.

Location of nuclear power plants in India 

Earthquake-prone regions are categorised between Zones I and IX from least earthquake-prone to most earthquake-prone. Indian nuclear power plants are situated in Zone II and III except the Narora plant in Uttar Pradesh, which is situated in Zone IV. Japan’s nuclear plants are in Zones VII, VIII and IX.

 

 

, , , , ,

No Comments

Geostrategy : Nuclear Pakistan: Hot-Headed or Rational?  Syed Ali Zia Jaffery

Geostrategy

Nuclear Pakistan: Hot-Headed or Rational?

Kenneth Waltz”The spread of nuclear weapons: more may be better.”

The essence of the Westphalian state system lies in the concept of territorial sovereignty. Inherent in the sanctity of the mainland is the need for national security. This has become an indispensable vital national interest of all states. The colossal damage caused by the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki bears testimony to the annihilation capacity of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). However, there is a lot more to the use of the “deadly” nukes.

The veritable value of going nuclear can be gauged in the hostile Indo-Pak theatre. The partition of the Indian Subcontinent saw the emergence of this intense rivalry from the very outset. The reasons are well documented and even a cursory look at them would enable students and observers to decipher the anatomy of adversarial ties. Both states grappled with their perceived and actual fears, and to withstand threats to their interests embroiled in armament, both conventional and nuclear. The need for treading on the nuclear path was different for both countries.

It is imperative to briefly differentiate between the reasons for both South Asian titans going nuclear. India’s gargantuan foreign policy goals and security thinking shaped by long-held misgivings shaped her nuclear ambitions. Pakistan, on the other hand, faced with a quantitatively superior eastern neighbor, which was instrumental in its dismemberment, had to look for “internal balancing”. Indeed, the growing conventional asymmetry necessitated Islamabad to bear its own teeth.

Pakistan was left with no choice but to induct a force equalizer to deter India from any military misadventure. Hence, Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine and the development of a cohesive nuclear force are intended to ward-off threats emanating from India. In all earnestness, Pakistan’s nuclear incursions are solely India centric.

This assertion can be corroborated by the fact that Pakistan maintains the doctrine of Credible Minimum Deterrence (CMD). The idea behind CMD is that an enemy larger in size can be dissuaded with small but a credible nuclear force. The doctrine is well-suited to Pakistan’s evident limitations.

Pakistan’s persistence with CMD has been effective in averting wars and also the “nuclear bogey” among other factors, ensured that low-intensity conflicts did not escalate into a full-scale war. The Kargil conflagration is perhaps a classic case of how the knowledge of the “nuclear possession” kept the conflict limited to a series of tactical skirmishes.

Pessimists opine that deterrence theory failed when both locked horns over strategically vital peaks. However, it must be stressed that a 1965-like escalation was avoided, with the help of international intervention because both India and Pakistan had a nuclear device in their caches.

Nuclear capabilities do not rule out the occurrence of low-intensity conflicts, for they bring about a stability-instability paradox, wherein things remain stable at the higher end of the conflict spectrum. One could argue that nuclear weapons provided both states with a cushion to wrest control of Kargil through tactical engagements, but it also acted as an equalizer, which baulked nefarious designs. During the whole episode, the nuclear umbrella gave Pakistan much-needed psychological security as she felt less vulnerable to a 1971-like Indian onslaught. The events of 1971 were monumental in shaping Pakistan’s nuclear campaign.

International pressure prevailed on two other occasions. The first was in wake of Operation Parakram when after the parliament attacks, India amassed its forces on the International Border. Warmongering did not result in any physical engagement after the Mumbai attacks in 2008.

The success of “Nuclear Pakistan” in preventing a full-scale war can be evidenced by the fact that the incendiary forces which caused previous wars and battles still persist. To-date there are opportunities akin to those present in 1971 for India to capitalize upon. Moreover, if accusations are to be believed there exists a pre-1965 war situation. Indeed, the possession of an assured nuclear capability has changed the type of threat emanating from the eastern flank. The ongoing non-kinetic war must and cannot be labelled as a failure of deterrence theory, for Pakistan’s nuclear posture is intended to make the pursuance of a military option untenable for India to use against Pakistan.

Press Release

Rawalpindi- February 13 2017

Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa visited Strategic Plans Division today. He was received by Director General Strategic Plans Division, Lieutenant General Mazher Jamil and was given detailed briefing regarding various facets of Pakistan’s Strategic Programme.

COAS underlined the centrality of Pakistan’s Strategic Programme against a specific threat to our security. COAS lauded the efforts of Scientists and Engineers involved in the development programmes, which made Pakistan’s defence formidable. He highly appreciated operational preparedness and training standards of the Strategic Forces. He particularly expressed satisfaction on the comprehensive security regime of SPD.

STRATEGIC  PLANS DIVISION

Image result for pakistan strategic plans division

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pakistan officially maintains that it does not aim to attain nuclear parity with India and will continue with the Minimum Credible Deterrence. Minimum is not a number but refers to the acquisition of no more nuclear weapons than necessary to deter the adversary from launching a nuclear attack. Thus the word “minimum” is relative at best and hence Pakistan has to monitor and evaluate the developments across the border. The question that one needs to answer is whether Pakistan’s increasing stockpile is a rational policy? Is there a need to bolster means of second-strike and inducting long-range ballistic missiles in the scheme of things?

First, the development of a second-strike capability is central to deterrence. India, with a well developed second/counter strike capability and a greater geographical depth, had the propensity to withstand a surprise or a pre-emptive strike from Pakistan. However, Pakistan bereft of the very advantages would not have been able to thwart a retaliation. Thus, the addition of an assured second-strike capability is imperative to make deterrence credible. Second, the need for modernizing delivery systems is all the more important because of deterrence hooks upon the ability to make the enemy aware of the ability and the willingness to use the device if and when the need arises.

Eyebrows have been raised regarding two aspects of Pakistan’s nuclear program. One is the growth in the number of warheads whilst the other is concerned with the design of Tactical Nuclear Weapons.

As aforementioned, deterrence is more effective when a country has adequate second-strike prowess.The number game hence becomes all the more important especially given the threats posed to CMD by India’s ever-increasing economic and technological muscle. Second-strike elicits its strength of the “residual” capacity hence Pakistan can feel relatively safer by the mere accumulation of warheads before making them more credible. The quantum has gained currency especially after India’s deployment of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. Albeit in a rudimentary stage, the likelihood of intercepting Pakistan’s main delivery vehicles can greatly undermine the efficacy of Credible Minimum Deterrence. India’s BMD is likely to undermine Pakistan’s retaliatory capacity but a greater amount of warheads can reduce the precision of India’s Ballistic Missile Defense.

In sum, India’s grandiose aspirations and the initiatives taken to augment her military muscle, coupled with Pakistan’s limitations necessitate the latter to add to its deterrence value. This is being rightly done by not only focusing on credibility and survivability but also on the quantum of warheads. This is in-line with Pakistan’s quest to provide for her own security in an environment dictated by anarchy and self-help. Perhaps, it is pertinent to quote Waltz once more amidst doubts about the perils of a “Nuclear Pakistan”.

“If a country has nuclear weapons, it will not be attacked militarily in ways that threaten its manifestly vital interests. That is 100 percent true, without exception, over a period of more than fifty years.”

Reference

, , , , ,

No Comments

The Faulty and Dangerous Logic of Missile Defense by Laura Grego in Scientific American

Russia Sells India an anti-Missile System of Dubious Effectiveness- A Win-Lose Contract-Russia wins $ 5 Bn, India gets a Lemon.

Russia has sold India S-400 anti-missile missile system, whose effectiveness in battlefield conditions have not been proven. Such systems are defensive toys, which costs India $5 billion. In a massive air-attack from 5th generation fighter jets, followed by a barrage of thousands of missiles, such defensive systems fail. Israel tried to use, the US manufactured THAAD system against HAMAS and HIZBULLAH Tin Can Rockets FAILED. MIRVs such as NASR, RAAD, and ABABEEL make  S-400 ineffective white elephants, like the Indian use of 155 mm BOFORS GUNS in the rarified air of Kargil Heights.

North Korea’s recent and dramatic tests of long-range missiles have created a sense of urgency and vulnerability in the United States, leading to renewed calls for expanding missile defenses. The administration and Congress have approved huge funding increases for existing systems, and call for developing new types of defenses—potentially including interceptors in space.

Is this the answer? How should one think about missile defense: as a protective shield or a dangerous illusion?

Missile defenses have as long a history as missiles do, and in the late 1960s, American and Soviet scientists came to believe that a defense against long-range missiles would never be effective because the other country would build more weapons to defeat it, leading to a dangerous arms race. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which placed strict limits on U.S. and Soviet/Russian strategic missile defenses, reflected that understanding.

President Reagan’s 1983 “Star Wars” speech challenged that idea by calling for the United States to develop a large defensive system that included orbiting interceptors. Recognized by most experts as unworkable, this expansive system was pared down over the next decade and finally shelved, although work continued on interceptor technology during the Clinton administration.

Then, in 2002, President George W. Bush abandoned the logic of the ABM Treaty, by withdrawing from it and announcing that the United States would field the first interceptors of a new Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) in less than two years. To do so, the administration exempted its development from the strict “fly-before-you-buy” rules that govern all other large Pentagon projects—a step that has had dire and long-lasting consequences.

GMD remains the sole system designed to counter intercontinental ballistic missiles. Its 44 silo-based interceptors in Alaska and California are designed to be guided by space, ground and sea-based sensors to collide with an incoming warhead and destroy it with the force of impact.

Reflecting the difficulty of the task, and the haste and lack of rigor of its development, the GMD system today has an abysmal test record, even though these tests were “scripted for success” according to former Pentagon head testing official Phil Coyle.

The problems are well documented. Only about half of the 18 intercept tests since 1999 successfully destroyed their targets, and the test record has not improved with time: only two of the last five tests were successful—and GMD has still has not been tested under operationally realistic conditions. Thus, there is no evidence that the GMD 40 billion system provides a reliable defense, even against a country like North Korea.

More fundamentally, even if the reliability is improved, GMD’s prospects for providing a valid defense in the future are poor because it will face countermeasures that any country that has developed a long-range missile and a nuclear warhead could readily use to confuse or overwhelm the system.

Despite these problems, however, the administration and Congress plan to expand the system; the current budget includes funding to build 20 additional interceptors.

Given North Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear-armed long-range missile, it seems reasonable to ask whether something isn’t better than nothing. That sounds plausible but does not hold up upon closer examination. The unconstrained pursuit of missile defenses can, perhaps counterintuitively, create even more significant risks.

For example, a belief that missile defense works better than it does can lead political and military leaders to adopt a more aggressive foreign policy and take more risks. U.S. officials regularly describe the system as much more capable than it has been demonstrated to be. Even President Trump stated on television last October that “We have missiles that can knock out a missile in the air 97 per cent of the time.” Yet the testing data show there is no basis to expect interceptors to work more than 40 to 50 per cent of the time even under the most generous and optimal conditions.

Using multiple interceptors against each target can improve these odds, but it does not fundamentally change the situation; the chance of a nuclear weapon getting through would still be dangerously high. Consider an attack with five missiles. Using four interceptors against each target, each with a kill probability of 50 per cent, the odds that one warhead gets through are 28 percent—or higher, if the failure modes are not independent of each other (for example, if the guidance systems of all the interceptors are faulty in the same way).

Overestimating defense effectiveness could increase policymaker support for a pre-emptive attack against North Korea, which might then fire missiles in retaliation. It would then become clear that the system could not stop those missiles.

Missile defenses can also increase nuclear risks by blocking arms control and providing incentives for Russia and China to build more and different kinds of weapons; preventing this dynamic was a core reason for the ABM Treaty’s limits. Russia and China worry the United States may come to believe it could launch a first strike without fear of retaliation because it could shoot down any surviving missiles. This fear is exacerbated by U.S. development of conventional “counterforce” weapons that can attack Chinese and Russian nuclear weapon systems.

These concerns are not theoretical. Russia has repeatedly stated that any future arms control agreements must include limits on missile defenses and says the expansion of U.S. defenses could lead it to withdraw from the New START treaty. And on March 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans to field several new nuclear systems that could avoid U.S. missile defenses, including nuclear-powered nuclear-armed cruise missiles and underwater drones.

China has begun to build more long-range missiles, develop hypersonic weapons and deploy multiple warheads on its missiles, and has also discussed putting its missiles on high alert. At worst, U.S. defenses are driving developments that result in more threats and risks; at best they are providing justifications for them. The irony is that they do not provide adequate defense in any case.

Unfortunately, things are on a path to get worse. The United States is developing a ship-based interceptor that in theory could intercept strategic missiles and plans to field hundreds of them in the coming years. An influential minority in Congress has been calling for space-based missile defenseswith plans for a “space test bed” that would put dedicated weapons in orbit for the first time. Chinese and Russian military planners will not ignore these developments.

As long as nuclear-armed countries continue to believe their security relies on the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons, missile defenses will interfere with efforts to reduce—and eventually eliminate—these weapons. Given the inherent problems with building reliable and effective missile defenses, these defenses are more a dangerous illusion than a realistic solution.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Rights & Permissions

Reference

, , , ,

No Comments