Should Pakistan Have Tested?
By Khalid Baig
The debate in Pakistan over whether or not to test its nuclear devices ended the moment
the first tests were carried out on the afternoon of 28 May 98. The tiny apologist lobby
lost; the great majority of the country won. But that tiny minority did not disappear, it
is just hiding in wait. Looks like in the days ahead, if the going gets tough, it would be
mocking the "emotionalism" of the country with "I told you so." So,
let us look at their arguments.
- We are a peaceful nation.
That is precisely the reason Pakistan had to conduct the test. We must realize that
there is no defense against nuclear weapons. The only thing that will keep an adventurer
from launching an attack is the knowledge that the other side can and will respond in
kind.
India is the Certified Neighborhood Bully in the subcontinent. It has problems with all
six of its neighboring countries. Its belligerence is especially directed against Pakistan
with which it fought three wars within the first 23 years of its independence. The last
war resulted in the breakup of Pakistan, which was a major step toward the Indian goal of
reclaiming all of Pakistan into Akhand Bharat or the Indivisible India. The Hindu zealots
have never given up on that dream and right now, they are Delhi's new leaders.
- Nukes did not save Soviet Union.
Try selling that argument to the U.S., Israel, or India. The fact is that military
might is a necessary but not sufficient factor for survival. Soviet Union failed because
of its economy, but Russia is still a world power because of its military might,
especially its nuclear capabilities. On the other hand, the problem in Bosnia was not
economy but lack of weapons.
It is the same "international community" that had ensured the slaughter of
Bosnians by denying them weapons for their defense, that is now condemning Pakistan for
not giving up its nuclear defense.
- We should cash in on the economic opportunity.
The argument goes that by "exercising restraint" we can win economic favors
from the big powers and use them to put our house in order. The ignorance and moral
bankruptcy of this argument is appalling. If there is no security, there will be no house
to put in order. If living in a dangerous neighborhood, would you exchange your gun, your
only means of self-defense, for a decoration peace for the living room?
- What about the sanctions.
Actually in the current circumstances, any sanctions imposed on Pakistan as punishment
might prove to be a blessing in disguise. The "aid" is a curse; its goal is to
cripple the economy of the recipient country making it totally dependent. Right now
Pakistan faces an interest bill for a billion dollars due next month. This is
"aid."
On the other hand, this hour of national emergency may bring the entire country
together, thereby helping to get over this imposed dependency, once for all.
- All we need is security guarantees.
To entertain that idea for even a second is to forget all history. The Israeli state
was established on land stolen from the Palestinians after they had been given guarantees
by the British that the land will be theirs. The history of Pakistan has been no
different. Even in a bipolar world, where Pakistan was in the U.S. camp while India was in
the Soviet camp, Pakistan found the worth of its friendship with the U.S. in 1965. When
India invaded the country, the U.S. came to Pakistan's "help" by cutting off all
military assistance the moment the war started. The same story was repeated in 1971 and
Pakistan kept waiting for the U.S. Seventh fleet until the country was broken into two.
Would things be better in a unipolar world and in an era whose operating philosophy is
defined by the "Clash of Civilizations"?
Actually, what India has done is perfectly according to the blue print of the New World
Order. This order wants to perpetuate a state of subjugation for the weak, a designation
that includes all Muslim countries. According to it, Russia can have nuclear weapons but
Kazakhstan cannot. Israel can have them but Iraq cannot. India can have them but Pakistan
cannot. To submit to this order is to commit suicide--- hardly a way to guarantee
security.
- Islam is a religion of peace.
Certainly. And it does command us to build a strong force to ensure peace. The Muslims
have a duty to standup to the bullies; otherwise, there will be no peace in the world.
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds
of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies."
[Al-Anfal, 8:60] This verse requires us to be self-sufficient in defense equipment of all
kinds.
It is reported that two prominent companions, Urwa bin Masood and Ghailan bin Aslam,
Radi-Allahu un-huma, missed the battle of Hunain, because they had gone to Syria to learn
the manufacturing process of dabbaba and dhabboor, two advanced weapons of war.
Similarly, Islam fully understands the importance of showing your strength to deter the
rouges of the world. The practice of ramal and idhtibagh during pilgrimage are a reminder
of that important moral principle. The practices demonstrate physical strength and
alertness of a soldier. They were instituted in 7 A.H. when the Muslims returned to Makkah
after their migration to Madinah and the pagans of Makkah started saying that Muslims had
become weak by living in Madinah.
Islam stands for peace and justice. It gives a message of kindness, mercy and
compassion to the whole world. But kindness and mercy are attributes of power. A powerless
person can only ask for mercy, he cannot show mercy to others.
Pakistan conducted nuclear tests because that was the only way to guarantee peace of
the brave and the strong. The other option would have only lead to the peace of the
graveyard.
Current Affairs 