In the first place, Pakistan, does not nourish even a regional power status for itself. It's message is of peace, and regional economic co-operation. It is totally committed to a paradigm shift, in which the resources diverted from arms reduction are channelled towards human security and even nuclear deterrence is to be logically transformed into detente. This would require concerted efforts of regional and extra regional countries. The prerequisite however, is that India is made to realise that Kashmiris have a right to exercise their choice to opt either for Pakistan or India as part of the partition agenda, and also commitments made by the United Nations. Any short-circuiting of the pledge, would be perilous for the South Asian peace and security. Kissinger rightly counsels: The American policy should be to ease political tension in South Asia.13 But unfortunately, there is a historical indifference which US has persistently followed to appease India. One is reminded of a semantic paradox, when William Gaud, Deputy Administrator of Aid, outspokenly said to the House Committee that while Kashmir is an important issue, it is not an essential issue in that part of the world, as far as we are concerned.14 As far back as 1964, Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State, highlighted the importance of the United States remaining Steadfast in its support to Indian economic development and defence efforts during the coming years.15 He had identified key problem areas where US aid was a factor. They included South Vietnam, India, Brazil, Africa and Cyprus. Pakistan was nowhere mentioned. It is indeed Pakistan's naivete that it remained under a false illusion, that it was the most allied of the allies. It never was. The target was always India. A stage-managed tilt was demonstrated only to lure India to drift away from its strategic mentor - USSR. Taking full advantage of the cold war rivalry, India seduced both and reaped maximum strategic harvest. In the Post Cold War, cognising the latent antipathy of USA towards China, Indian Defence Minister George Farnandes, came out with a concocted theme of so called threat from China. The objective was to extract all favours from USA and earn endorsement of its sixth nuclear-weapon-state status and consequently qualify for a seat in the Security Council.

Kissinger's appraisal of India as a global nuclear actor is based on the wrong premise that its nuclear deterrence is against China. It is not so. It was out-rightly designed to intimidate Pakistan and aggressively annex Kashmir - overflowing from its fantasised power-intoxicated ambitions. Similarly to say that Pakistan was only a regional actor, is also ill conceived. It's nuclear deterrence even though not designed as such transcends South Asia. The Gulf and the Middle East region which has lived in the nightmarish dread of Israel's solitary nuclear power, have reacted to Pakistan's nuclear identity with a sigh of relief. There were outpourings of spontaneous exhilaration, which cannot be couched in words. Pakistan's nuclear devices which can be launched through Ghauri missiles have potentials not only to target India's nuclear and military installations but with added range which is well within Pakistan's capability, these can also land in Israel. Having an ability is not to be aggressive. Pakistan knows Israel's all rounded nuclear capabilities and the fact that it has nearly two hundred nuclear warheads with all sophisticated missiles and delivery systems. It intends no confrontation with this powerful and overly militant country, which is the most favoured strategic partner of USA. Who would even nourish insane ambitions? But nuclear weapons are great levellers.

Pakistan's nuclear power is for security insurance mainly for itself but also with added dimensions to help provide a sense of security to the countries of West Asia and Middle East. This deterrence has come as an accompanied baggage of the brave effort to counter India's nuclear threat. Providence often rewards acts of bravery on the part of nations. Pakistan's dual deterrence (DD), as propounded by General Beg in his recent article Islamic Bomb: Myth Turns into Reality, falls into that category.16 It need not be exaggerated beyond proportion, but to deny it is to distort reality.

Manifestations of DD are quite vivid. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said: Iran will not endorse international sanctions against Pakistan. Muslims around the world are happy over nuclear tests conducted by Pakistan.17 Moreover, quite unequivocally, he asserted that Pakistan's nuclear capability had reduced the fear of the Israeli atomic bomb. Most Muslims now feel more confident that Pakistan's nuclear capability would play a role of deterrence to Israel's nuclear capability.18 The Arab League, expressed total abhorrence over dual standards of the Security Council and the western nations. Lot of resentment is being expressed on India's and Pakistan's nuclear explosions but no one is concerned about the total nuclear monopoly that Israel enjoys and on that account, it is predisposed to terrorise the region. The non-permanent members of the Council representing Arabian countries, Egypt, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates unitedly voiced their concern. The Egypt's Mufti-e-Azam has also made a fervent appeal that all Muslim countries must rally round Pakistan to support its nuclear programme. The Prime Minister of Lebanon also minced no words, and was overly critical of ignoring Israel's threat, which is the basic impediment to peace in the Middle East. The Muslim Press has hailed Pakistan's emergence as the seventh nuclear nation of the world. King Shah Fahd of Saudi Arabia has also fully supported Pakistan's stand and has made an explicit promise to help Pakistan overcome its hurdles and hardships. Afghanistan has gone a step forward in declaring that any aggression on Pakistan would be deemed an aggression on Afghanistan. Afghanistan, though seemingly tortured due to the ravages of war, has unique resilience to survive under all threats and crises. It's support to Pakistan has far reaching implications if it is effectively harnessed.

The one aspect, says Eqbal Ahmad - who is undoubtedly a gifted analyst and wields a facile pen - in which a substantive change may have occurred in Pakistan's favour is its standing in the Middle East. The region's government and people are living under the frightening shadow of Israel's nuclear arms. Israel is not, by any definition of the word, a peaceful power.19 But having made this very objective analysis, Eqbal Ahmad slips into serious apprehension: Pakistan's ruling establishment, he says, knows that at the slightest hint of it, the wrath of the United States shall fall on us; only then shall we experience real sanctions. It is a risk that cannot be taken, and our officials have been vowing not to take it. So this is an unrealizable gain.20

In the first place, nuclear explosion has a language of its own. It need not have the support and crutches of words. The only commitment Pakistan has made is that it would not pass on the nuclear capability to any other nation. This is a very solemn promise, unlike the hypocritical one, which the nuclear powers have generally adhered to. They are largely responsible for nuclear proliferation to the extent that it has gone to erode its credibility. Kissinger, quite forthrightly acknowledges: The national security strategy of the United States is built around nuclear weapons.21 Kurt - Georg Kiesinger - a Post-war German Chancellor, made a very apt remark with respect to nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which he said: is like a bunch of notorious drunkards inviting everyone else to sign the pledge.22

On the apprehended possibility of US wrath one can only say that it has much greater strategic interest in Pakistan, in the post cold war scenario, as it is a pivotal state in the region due to its proximity with China, India, West Asia, Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia. This advantage, USA will never like to squander away. Losing the leverage in Iran, after Shah's ouster, is a historical lesson for USA. Moreover, deterrence is essentially a concept linked up with peace. It has no jingoistic overtones. Has not Pakistan gone through the trauma of three criminal plans hatched by Israel and India - 1986, 1990 and then again in 1998 just prior to Pakistan's nuclear test explosion to destroy its nuclear installations. Are not these acts of aggression? Has Pakistan no moral right to safeguard its hard earned nuclear capability against such nefarious adventures in future? If the Gulf and Middle Eastern regions feel secure and realise the fuller meaning of their sovereignty, is it not their inherent right? When shall humanistic order, after all prevail in the world?

The Indian strategists defined their objectives in the international arena to be clear cut: To catch up with China and prevent Pakistan from catching up with India.23 They have failed on both counts. China is much too formidable a nation to be countered by India, which is bleeding with abject poverty. China's power does not emanate only from its nuclear arsenal. It is also emerging as an economic power of the 21st Century. Far from catching up with China, which is a strategic reverie rather than any obtainable proposition, India has lost the opportunity of building up ties of friendship and co-operation with China, due to the strategic blunder of terming its nuclear adventure' as a defence against so called threat from China. Conversely, China has come much closer to Pakistan and has made no secret of its resolve to come to its rescue in this hour of crisis and challenge. It is indeed a great strategic achievement for Pakistan.

The nuclear deterrence Pakistan has achieved against India, has triggered a new equation in the entire South Asia. The tone and temper of Advani and Bajpai type leaders has drastically changed. There is now a rhetoric drifting from outright billigrence to peace seeking and dialogue. India's turn about is a ruse and deception. Bilateralism, the usual gimmick - is only to stall for time. Pakistan can not be duped to accept this as a credible modality to resolve the Kashmir issue. It must capitalize upon the historic opportunity to put an end to Kashmiris' slaughter, mayhem and disgrace to their womenfolk. Without gaining military leverage in Kashmir, Pakistan cannot expect any politicalsolution. It is within Pakistan Armed Forces competence to achieve it.

Those who apprehend that India would widen the scope of the conflict, should realise that it will do so at its own peril. Pakistan Armed Forces are not the Armed Forces of 1971. What is needed is to consolidate the strategic gains Pakistan has achieved at the nuclear front. The nation has to be interwoven into an impregnable unity.

Anything which is achieved through imposition through draconian laws or declared emergency, is not really worth achieving. A solid consensus is the compelling need of the hour.

We have made many tardy mistakes in the past. But as they say: Whatever disgrace we may have deserved, it is almost always in our power to re-establish our character.