HISTORY'S ROLE REVERSAL

President Barack Obama is quite firm that all those non-signatory countries to Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) should fall in line and sign the NPT that came into effect on July 1968. He ensured that the United Nations Security Council adopted a US-sponsored resolution committing to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. The meeting was chaired by Obama himself and the resolution authorises the Security Council with the responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of the Treaty threaten international peace and security. What does this mean is to state the obvious. Obama made a very pious statement that the resolution shared the US commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Since 1968, 189 countries signed the Treaty, five of which are declared Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). Only four sovereign countries have consistently refused to sign the treaty and they are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. Interestingly, expansionist China, emerging nuclear power nation Iran and rogue nation Libya were signatories. North Korea did sign initially and then backed out. Basically, the present resolution targets India and Pakistan. Israel has not made any open declaration about its nuclear status and North Korea, any way, is a pariah among the international community.

Therefore, India was very quick to respond with a firm “no” to the UNSC resolution. India’s argument is that the NPT creates a club of “nuclear haves” and a larger group of “nuclear have-nots” by restricting the legal use of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the Treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

India is also of the view that nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament. Non-proliferation and disarmament are complementary to each other. India maintains that without tangible progress in disarmament, the current emphasis on non-proliferation cannot be sustained.

In fact, Abdel Nasser of Egypt, one of the architects of Non-aligned Movement, once said “basically they did whatever they wanted to do before the introduction of NPT and then devised it to prevent others from doing what they had themselves been doing before.

India also feels that the NPT is flawed because of violations by the five Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). Art 1 of the Treaty prevents transfer of nuclear weapons or the nuclear explosive devices by the five NWS and also not to assist, encourage or induce a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons. If we go by the nuclear proliferator of Pakistan, AQ Khan’s letter to his wife, China has been doing exactly what the NPT prohibited. What could the signatories to NPT do to restrain China from nuclear proliferation?

NWS are also prevented from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states except in response to nuclear attack or conventional attack in alliance with a NWS. How did the US follow this provision of the Treaty? It had nuclear war heads targeted at North Korea for decades. US also invoked the possibility of using it against rogue states. France was no exception either. What could the NWS do to the signatory Iran when it is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons?

So, India may not be totally wrong in resisting the attempts by world powers to make India sign the NPT. But one cannot miss the 360 degree turnaround in the world scenario between Fifties and Sixties and the 21st century. There was a time during the Cold War when both America and the Soviet Union, in complete disregard of the world opinion, were indulging in nuclear arms race. It was India which first raised a moral rebellion against nuclear weapons and it was C Rajagopalachari, at the age of 84, who undertook his first foreign visit to meet John F Kennedy to prevail upon him the need to give up the arms race keeping in view the interests of humanity and posterity.

It will be worthwhile to take a peep into history to know how it was left to the first Indian to voice the country’s protest against the nuclear proliferation much before the NPT whereas it may now appear that India is obsessed with the need for n-weapons for its security because of the changed geo-political equations when it says “no” to UNSC resolution.

Soviet Union’s 50-megaton nuclear bang made Rajaji to demand that India ostracise the USSR and Nehru was unwilling to take such a drastic step. Later when America scheduled retaliatory blasts, Bertrand Russell wanted an Indian ship to be sent to the Pacific Zone. Nehru was reluctant even to this proposal. After series of exchange of letters between Nehru and Rajaji, it was agreed to send the latter by the Gandhi Peace Foundation to the US and USRR to prevail upon both the Heads of States to call off the nuclear arms race.

It was on September 28, 1962 (exactly 47 years ago) Rajaji accompanied by RR Diwakar of the Gandhi Peace Foundation and journalist Shiv Rao, met John F Kennedy in the White House. Recalling the visit, Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Rajaji goes into the details of the meeting in his book “The Rjaji Story 1937-1972” (pp 311)
“Kennedy sat in his rocking chair, with Diwakar and Shiv Rao on his right and Rajaji and BK Nehru on his left. Rajaji began disarmingly. He was not pleading, he said, for American disarmament: how could he, when his own government had a policy of armed defence? But the immediate cessation of nuclear tests stood on a different footing. Delicately he introduced the argument that the world as a whole had a right to say to the nuclear powers that they could not, in the name of testing, poison the atmosphere and endanger humanity, now and in the future”.

Was the talk fruitful? Rajaji was asked by a reporter. It was “flowerful” was the reply.

What an irony and quirk of world scenario. Nearly half-a-century ago, India was pleading with the major world powers for cessation of nuclear tests which endangered humanity. Now, India is being asked to sign the non-proliferation treaty by the very same powers and India says “nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security".

JINNAH'S GHOST

It is quite amusing that Jaswant Singh, castigated by the media all along for having played the role of a villain in the Kandahar hijack episode, suddenly finds an adoring and admiring press for himself. What brought this sudden change in the perception of our media? After he released his last book which referred to a “mole” in the Prime Minister’s Office, everyone was after him including our Prime Minister who pinned him down on the floor of the Rajya Sabha to name the “mole”. Jaswanth did not come out well with a convincing response and he had to concede that it was only his “guess”. For the media, he was only a scotch-drinking feudal in a safari suit and with baritone voice which at times was irritating.

May be, there are reasons for the media to develop love for him in the last couple of days. He took on the mighty RSS calling them “Suvidhabhogis”. He could defy the party higher-ups and release his book, Jinnah: India-Partition Independence which blamed Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel for the partition of India – last century’s worst event in human history which displaced 15 million people and killed atleast 1.5 million Hindus and Muslims, ghosts of whom are still haunting both the nations.

Those who were born after Independence, and therefore, not witness to the freedom movement, were fed with the theory that Mohamad Ali Jinnah was the sole culprit and the demon who was responsible for the vivisection of the country. Such a theory suited Jawaharlal, Gandhi and the Sangh Parivar. For the latter, it was yet another tool to demonise the minorities. For nearly sixty years, Jinnah continued to be a devil in the eyes of Indians.

Countless number of publications must be in the market dealing with the freedom struggle and they are only a repetition of the myth that was created by the vested interests – Gandhi was infallible and it was his struggle alone that won freedom for us burying the fact that there were quite a few leaders in different states who contributed in no less a degree to attain independence. To digress a bit, someone filed a petition in the Supreme Court that there should be a law to prohibit any criticism of Gandhi and the apex court in its wisdom dismissed such a plea.

Similarly, Jawaharlal’s blunders were swept under the carpet and he was projected, to the exclusion of his contemporaries like Patel, Rajaji, Subash Bose, as the jewel of India. While the nation is suffering because of his miscalculations and misjudgements, it is his family that has been cornering all the privileges.

Lal Krishna Advani may now be an uninspiring and failed leader, but it was he who changed the perception of atleast a section of Indians towards Jinnah, much to the chagrin of both the Congress and the Sangh Parivar. And he had to pay a price for it. Regrettably, our mediamen, more so, our noisy anchors seem to have a short memory. They have been harping on the fact that the Bharatiya Janata Party had adopted double standards while dealing with Advani and Jaswanth. After his talk about Jinnah’s secular credentials in Pakistan, Advani had a harrowing time and he was stripped of the Presidentship of the party. Since he was the President of the party at that time no one could have expelled him like Jaswanth was expelled by the party. That was the only difference. Otherwise both had to pay a price.

Having said that, we have to admit that the manner in which Jaswanth was shown the door was undoubtedly bereft of grace and highly undemocratic. A frontline leader of Jaswanth’s stature deserves the decency of a notice and an opportunity to explain his case. Or, as he himself suggested, he could have been asked to quit. It is still a mystery why such a precipitate action was taken against him though the media loves to point out its finger at Jhandewalan.

As if to add fuel to the fire, Narendra Modi’s government has banned the book. By its very nature, interpretation of history is bound to give expression to diverse views, both subjective and objective. Jinnah has gone on record in 1947 in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly that the state will have nothing to do with the religion of its citizens and they are free to follow any religion of their choice with equal rights. Unfortunately for Pakistan and also for India, he succumbed to his terminal illness within a year. But for this quirk of history, things could have been different.

It is no secret that both Nehru and Patel did not want further delay in the declaration of Independence and therefore wanted to concede the demand of the Muslim League for partition. They perhaps wanted to ensure that the British rulers did not use this vexed issue as an excuse to delay the independence. Their decision is, therefore, unquestionable. Even Rajaji was party to the decision of conceding the demand of the Muslim League.

Jaswanth interpreted this fact of history to say that there was no point in demonising Jinnah for partition and Nehru and Patel were also equally responsible. This also destroyed the earlier myths about Nehru, Patel and Jinnah. Everyone need not agree with certain universally accepted perceptions. There are people who criticise Gandhi as being hypocrite, Hindu fundamentalist, dictator etc. though we have accepted him as the Father of the Nation. Similarly, Patel is a national hero and the architect of united India despite the fact that Congress leadership has deliberately failed to commemorate him in a manner that he deserved.

Banning a book because of certain uncomplimentary references is not in keeping with our civilisational and democratic ethos. Why did the BJP criticise the then Rajiv Gandhi government for banning Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses? Why did the party lambast the Left government for throwing Tasleema Nasreen out of West Bengal?

Well, there are “holy cows” in every state. Like Patel in Gujarat, you can’t say anything against Chatrpathi Shivaji in Maharashtra, against Tagore and Subash Chandra Bose in Bengal, against Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu. They are not Gods. In fact, Hindu tradition allows you to find fault with God himself. If we don’t allow interpretation of history, however subjective it may be, we may not only be policing the thoughts of our citizens, but leading the posterity in a blind alley. Jaswant may not belong to the BJP now. But as a citizen of this country, he is entitled to his views. Ban on his book smacks of extreme intolerance and prejudice which have no place in a pluralistic society.