'Nukes deterred Indo-Pak war'


AUG 9, 2005
'Nukes deterred Indo-Pak war' Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa is a scholar of Pakistan's military and security affairs and a regular contributor to several Pakistani and internationally renowned opinion journals. Currently she is a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC where she is busy writing her latest book "Military Inc, The Politics of Military's Economy in Pakistan". In it, she analyzes Pakistan military's vast commercial interests and its economic predation since 1953. Ayesha Siddiqa also writes on Pakistan's military affairs for Jane�s Information Group. She was asked to work as the Director of Naval Research with the Navy making her the first civilian and woman to work at that position in the Pakistan defense establishment. She has a doctorate in War Studies from King's College, London in 1996. DesPardes.com Editor-in-Chief Mr Irshad Salim conducted a two-part online interview with her on the subject of her upcoming book, Pakistan affairs and post 9/11 scenario. Following are the excerpts of the second part of the online interview: irshadsalim28: You seem to hold the opinion that nuclear weapons deterred wars between India and Pakistan. Why do u think so? asidd66: Do you think the weapons didn't? I think it did. irshadsalim28: S you think it was worth spending that kind of money for it? asidd66: Nuclear weapons are not fun and games and policymakers would not use these. Should we have done it is different from what happens after we have nuclear weapons. The answers will be or could be different. irshadsalim28: I am asking this question in context of Pakistan military's vast budget that soared primarily because of its nuke program? asidd66: The defense budget that we see is the declared budget and does not contain most of the spending on the nuclear program. so the budget increased (didn't soar) due to other reasons. We have a huge standing military and get conventional weapons. irshadsalim28: In one of your speeches, or in your previous book you have stateed that Pakistan has 4 neighbors, India, Iran, Afghanistan and China and out of the 4 there are three with whom Pakistan has problems. Don't you think this is enough a justifiable reason to have an effective army? asidd66: I don't remember writing this. irshadsalim28: It is mentioned in Pakistan Link news report on your address at a restaurant in LA. asidd66: That news report is not what I said. The guy who reported it is absolutely crazy. I didn't say half the things that he attributed to me. irshadsalim28: The same report says the following about your speech...."Dr. Siddiqa-Agha didn't seem to have any qualms about Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. "Having nuclear arms gives you bargaining power." Dr. Siddiqa Agha said in her contention that nuclear weapons deter wars. Why? asidd66: If you have nuclear weapons then they work as a deterrent. irshadsalim28: You once said "There are at least twenty-six insurgencies going on in India at this time. But the moment Balochistan trouble is mentioned everybody in the the world looks at Pakistan as if it is going to disintegrate soon." Why do you think is the case? asidd66: This is because of the nature of the Pakistani state. It is a troubled state with a dysfunctional elite. irshadsalim28: Do u think it has to do with Pakistan being the only country in the world which was formed in the name of Islam, has nukes, Jihadis, etc.? asidd66: Over the past 59/60 years this dysfunctional elite has run amok with the state increasing the distance between itself and the people and, thus, alienating the have-nots. If you think there is a conspiracy to destroy this country then I beg to differ. irshadsalim28: Are you indignant over the negative publicity Pakistan gets in the international media? asidd66: I am sad but not indignant. When I blacken my face and dig my grave everyday, why blame others? irshadsalim28: In of your article CAN PAKISTAN TURN AROUND? you wrote...."Ayub�s reaction to the religious parties was driven by his desire to portray Pakistan as a progressive and modern state..." Do u draw a parallel between Ayub and Gen Musharraf on this? asidd66: But I don't think that the military is anti-mullah. It is the same. They are all comfortable with the mullah. irshadsalim28: You also wrote: "..external powers are also anxious in Pakistan�s transformation into a liberal society that doesn�t produce militants.." But external powers did the opposite during 1977 - 1990 what is your opinion on this issue now? asidd66: External powers like the U.S. have tailored their policies according to their needs. From 1977-90, it benefited them to support a certain brand of Islam. Wahabi brand. But the idea was not to support Wahabism, specifically. It so happened that this was the only brand that could create fighters. irshadsalim28: You mean the "end must justify the means" concept? asidd66: If this is the way you want to read it. irshadsalim28: Do you think this is dictated by power politics where Pakistan is a small fry? asidd66: Yes, somewhat. irshadsalim28: In your article you allude to a direct correlation between Afghan war and the rise of Islamic zealots, militants in Pakistan. Would you then still blame the army for it? asidd66: I would now re-write that portion and take it back to before the Afghan crisis. The connection between the mullah and the military came to fore during the Afghan crisis irshadsalim28: How can Pakistan now create a softer image of itself after having fought Jihad on behalf of others from 1977 until 1990? asidd66: It cannot because we are still engaged with the Jihadis. irshadsalim28: In USA the percentage of the religious and the right has increased since 9/11 and it has changed and continues to change the politics of USA. Then why shouldn't have the same happened in Pakistan when we did Jihad for others during the 12 long years of Afghan war? asidd66: Are we going to kill ourselves because others do too? I understand and concur that there is a link between the religious right in all countries. It is not a coincidence that Maulana Fazal ur Rehman's best meeting in India was with the RSS leader, but each country has to calculate its own options. irshadsalim28: Do u consider yourself a nationalist? asidd66: Yes I do. But how do you define a nationalist? irshadsalim28: In my book a nationalist is one who is proud of his or her country and speaks out for his or her country overseas and fights for his or her differing opinions within the country and not across the ocean asidd66: That makes most Pakistanis nationalists but I would not stand up for what is not right. irshadsalim28: If you were in Musharraf's position what would you have done differently with the Jihadi matter vis-a-vis Pakistan's softer image problem asidd66: If I was Musharraf, I wouldn't have done it differently because I represent the army's interest and not necessarily the country's. Pakistan cannot have a softer image unless we rethink the purpose for this country and give it a lease of life. I must also point out that Musharraf is not alone in this. All stakeholders have to rethink the vision for Pakistan. irshadsalim28: Do u think land colonization act of 1912 should be abolished? asidd66: Of course irshadsalim28: How can this be done? asidd66: The government has to commit to reviewing these laws irshadsalim28: Which govt.? Military or Civil? asidd66: I would prefer Civil. Only a civil government has some form of a mandate. The military is the state's bureaucracy meant to implement decisions and nothing else. irshadsalim28: If you were to give your educated opinion on this problem, would you recommend doing away with the 1912 land colonization act? asidd66: Yes, but more than that I would have a different country where the elite are more responsible towards the masses irshadsalim28: Have you studied Pakistan's breakup from any angle? asidd66: Of course, bits of it. I kind of grew up with it. irshadsalim28: What about Kargil? asidd66: Yes irshadsalim28: On a scale of 10 how well did you study Kargil? asidd66: Sufficiently to comment on it. (End of part 2 of Dr Siddiqa's interview)

Post you comments. Click here >
Athar Naqvi, London, UK Everyone knows that like other departments, the Military uses resources and makes money too but if we see it in a wider perspective, it's our politicians who put them in that position. Firstly, they (politicians) are not capable of running a government, secondly, they are also corrupt and steal a lot of money and thirdly, but most importantly, they put the whole country on stake for their own personal interests. I think Army is better in the sense that they secure the country and are loyal at least. Dr. Shazia highlighted the corruption in the army, a very bold step but she must also realize the fact that who let them do that, we, our politicians. God bless our country. *Zulfiqar Ahmed, Karachi* Dr. Ayesha has just revealed one of the many dark faces we have in Pakistan. Good job. But the impact it will have is little. And for those calling her 'Nationalist' and 'Western Agent': Just have a look into your own abey and you'll come to know. After all, how many of those sitting in the upper echelons do u find 'Pak and Pavtar'. Let the truth be told and told boldly. Just face it. After all we are learning this from the one who remained at the helm of affairs. Naeem Khan, Islamabad Aylo ji. Dr Sahiba. tusi kiddhe ho? Washington DC? Don't come back to Pakistan please. Stay there and count your dollars and dreams. You have opened up a can of worms. Yuck! Arjumand Ahmed, Lahore I have read Dr Ayesha's several articles in The Friday Times. Her views, analysis and observations are always well-founded. She must be right this time too. But what can we do about it except wait for another general to tell us that Pakistan needs to be saved again, so here we are, again! Dr Zubair Ahmed, Canada A very good posting and a good interview. An eye opener. Iqbal Fateh, Illinois I told you, the vested interest will use it. Man you have stirred a storm. Faiz Iqbal, Karachi Dr Siddiqa sounds like an agent of the West out to destroy Pakistan. *Ejaz Ahmed, Karachi* Since when has Dr Ayesha become a nationalist when all she is talking about is against Pakistan and its military. *Asim Khan, Los Angeles* Stay back in Washington DC Dr Sahiba and don't go back to Pakistan please. We do not need 'nationalists' like you there in Pakistan. We have plenty of real ones. How can you talk against Pakistan and it army sitting in USA? *Zakir Hussain, NY* So this is what our army has been doing since 1953. Hmmm interesting.... But Dr Ayesha should shut up when she is in the USA. I wonder if she is an agent? *Syeda Haque, NJ* It's time some one blew the whistle. It's not a good time though. God bless Pakistan. I'm a nationalist for sure.