April/May 1992, Page 45, 96

The Subcontinent

Nuclear Proliferation Casts Ominous Shadow

By M.M. Ali

An ill-timed Pentagon draft working paper, described as an internal memorandum and not a policy statement, has nonetheless received wide attention in South Asia. Surfacing in the midst of Indian Foreign Secretary J.N. Dixit's visit to Washington, it stated in part: "We will seek to prevent the further development of a nuclear arms race on the Indian subcontinent. In this regard, we should work to have both countries, India and Pakistan, adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to place their nuclear energy facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean. With regard to Pakistan, a constructive U.S.-Pakistani military relationship will be an important element in our strategy to promote stable security conditions in Southwest Asia and Central Asia. We should therefore endeavor to rebuild our military relationship given acceptable resolution of our nuclear concerns. . ."

Nuclear-Free vs. Nuclear-Safe

Dixit took strong exception to the reference to "Indian hegemonic aspirations over other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean." His talks with Bush administration officials continued on schedule, but they underlined the reality that the likelihood of keeping the subcontinent nuclear-free has passed. The question now is how to keep the area nuclear-safe. And also, how to remove the points of conflict between India and Pakistan which always threaten to trigger another war between the two countries.

In previous years, when the nuclear question was not an issue, Pakistan offered to sign a no-war pact with India, but nothing came of it. Now Pakistani Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif has proposed a "nuclear free-zone" for South Asia and has expressed willingness to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty "if India does likewise." India has declined, arguing that it is opposed to a monopoly by the nuclear club.

Pakistani Foreign Secretary Shahryar Khan disclosed in February that his country now has the "capability" to assemble a nuclear device, but has "no plans to do so." For its part, India successfully tested a nuclear device in 1974. According to intelligence reports circulating in various capitals, India may have "anywhere from 50 to 100" nuclear weapons, and "Pakistan between 6 and 10."

Although both countries have denied the reports, they are the driving force behind strong American advocacy for a Non-Proliferation Treaty to be signed by India and Pakistan. They already have gone to war with each other three times in the past 40 years. Whether either would resort to nuclear attacks in the event of a future war is anybody's guess.

In its March 9, 1992 issue, US News and World Report said: "If nuclear war is still thinkable, the place where it comes to mind most readily these days is the Indian subcontinent." The flash point is likely to be the long-unresolved Kashmir dispute.

India, which has agreed to most U.S. stipulations for receiving economic assistance, finds itself in a tight spot on the Kashmir issue. Its case is that it is not willing to follow the example of Mikhail Gorbachev, who lost control over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics once Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were allowed to secede.

Whether India can draw a convincing parallel between the former U.S.S.R.'s dilemma and its own situation vis-a-vis Kashmir is doubtful. It is true, however, that New Delhi also is dealing with serious insurgencies in Punjab, where the Sikhs are asking for a separate homeland, and in Assam, where another separatist struggle has simmered for many years.

The Kashmir dispute, pending in the U.N. for some 40 years, has resulted in division of Kashmir into an Indian-controlled and a Pakistani-controlled area. The Indian-held area has experienced severe unrest, particularly for the past two years, during which more than 3,700 people have been killed.

New Delhi has chosen to deal with the issue through force. Its latest move to ban the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) is yet another example of this policy. In the Indian-controlled area of Kashmir anti-Indian feelings have spread to young and old, men and women, and are becoming harder and harder to control.

Under international pressure to avoid providing the spark that could ignite an explosion in its relations with India, Islamabad resolved to prevent a planned crossing by JKLF counterparts over the U.N. Line of Control and into Indian-occupied Kashmir in February. It halted the marchers with gunfire, killing and wounding several. Whether the government of Pakistan will be able to block any such future attempts without triggering an outburst of sympathetic violence inside Pakistan itself is uncertain. The situation is tenuous and volatile.

U.S. economic and military assistance has been suspended for over a year because of U.S. charges that Pakistan is engaged in a nuclear weapons program. The country is hurting, particularly on the military side.

India, too, is desperately knocking at U.S. doors for assistance since the loss of its Soviet patron. Emotions over the Pentagon study aside, it is an opportunity for Washington to use its leverage to resolve tensions in the subcontinent. For the first time, the U.S. enjoys considerable, perhaps crucial, influence in both New Delhi and Islamabad at the same time.

The Punjab Issue

While Kashmir will always involve outside powers, the uprising of the Sikhs is primarily an internal law-and-order problem for India, albeit an extremely serious one. Commenting on the recent elections in Punjab, India Today says:

"The electoral process has been restored to Punjab; but the spirit of democracy is still at large. . . Once again there are no winners. . . Prime Minister Narasimha Rao would have deserved commendations for holding elections, if only the turnout had not been so pathetic, with the Sikhs staying away in letter and in spirit. . . This has reduced the results to a farce and demonstrated once again the militant sway. . ."

With Sikh nationalists calling for a boycott, and threatening those who ignored their call, a mere 21.6 percent of the Punjab population voted. In the rural areas, where most of the population lives, an overwhelming majorit boycotted the elections. Most of the votes that were cast in the urban area came from the Hindu community that sides with the Congress (I) party.

Unrest in Punjab has been a long-term problem for India. Matters worsened after former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's 1985 decision to storm the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the most sacred site for the Sikhs. The action resulted in massive killings of militant Sikhs holed up in the temple, and led to the subsequent assassination of Indira Gandhi by a Sikh bodyguard.

Under threat from militants who have been literally running the state, the traditional Sikh parties like the Akhali Dal and others have distanced themselves from the political scene. A number of political leaders and administrators who defied the militants have been killed. Elections in the state had to be postponed following Rajiv Gandhi's assassination early last year.

Militant Sikhs have been demanding a separate Sikh state which they call Khalistan. Of the recent elections, India Today wrote: "The most significant fall-out of the elections has been the arraying of all Sikh parties-militants and Akhalis-on a common plank. . . the militants are likely to step up violence. They were kept quiet during the elections by 750 paramilitary companies and nine army divisions."

The Indian magazine's prediction soon came true. On March 5, Sikh militants killed seven people in a Bombay shantytown 780 miles away from Punjab. A second and even more serious incident occurred inside Punjab itself, when militant Sikhs disguised as policemen lined up 16 Hindu managerial-level employees of a textile factory and shot them dead. All of the victims, it was reported, were from Indian states outside of Punjab.

The 12 Lokh Sabha (lower house of the central parliament) seats won by the Congress (I) party in Punjab may provide a much-needed majority to the Narasimha Rao government. It is questionable, however, whether democracy has been served when almost 80 percent of the Punjab electorate did not vote.

M.M. Ali is a professor at the University of the District of Columbia.

< Prev		Next >