Chariots of War!

Columnist Wing Comd (Retd) MUHANNAD IRSHAD discusses the situation in South Asia after the nuclear blasts and the advent missiles

Earlier, after 11 months of Indian Pokran-II nuclear tests which were conducted on May 11, India on April 11, test fired Agni-II Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM), which reached its point of impact after 11 minutes. This new generation of nuclear capable missile added range, mobility and punch to its defence network, and the test brings to an end India's five-year-long flip-flop over the Agni (meaning 'fire') programme. This test was in defiance of international appeals to put its nuclear programme on hold.

After Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee's very bold initiative of bus diplomacy in Lahore, one would have thought that India will refrain from further show of strength and the two neighbours shall be leading a life of peace and harmony, but when it comes to peace initiatives , Indians have a lengthy track record of taking one-step forward and two-steps backwards with all its neighbours. Out of a long list of such citations in relation to Pakistan, following should suffice to make the point.

• Centuries ago, the Marhata leader ShivaJee, knowing that he cannot fight the Muslim leader Afzal Khan, invited him to make truce. In the gathering of truce, he embraced Afzal Khan and with the help of a poisoned knife hidden in his sleeves, he stabbed in the back and killed Afzal Khan.
• All Pakistanis are very familiar with the famous words of Indian Prime Minister Jawahrlal-Nehru 'Our pledge to the people of Kashmir, if you like the people of this world, that this matter could be affirmed or cancelled by the people of Kashmir according to their wishes. We do not wish to win the people against their will with the help of armed forces, and if the people wish to part company with us, they may go their own way and we shall go ours. We want no forced marriages, no forced unions'. Today about 600,000 Indian armed forces are leashing a reign of terror in Kashmir, to stop Kashmiris exhibiting their love to join Pakistan.
• India signed the Chemical Weapon's Ban Treaty and gave a list of all the chemical weapons it possessed. This was a big surprise for Pakistan, as earlier India had signed Chemical Weapons Ban with Pakistan and had given a list of weapons it possessed. The difference in the two lists was alarming.
• Indians did not provide the advance notice of time and date of this Agni-II test, as desired under the memorandum of understanding that India and Pakistan signed at Lahore in February and which obliged both the countries to provide advance notifications to each other in the event of planned tests.

Why the Indians chose to test fire this missile? There could be many reasons for it. The most obvious one is that the ruling Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janta Party was in a political turmoil. It's one of the coalition partners had left the party, leaving behind the possibility of Indian Prime Minister to quit his high chair. The Agni-II missile could be a shrewd way of stabilising an otherwise sinking political boat. But, as the later events proved, one really wonder if such a show of strength could really act as a glue to weld the nation together?

The missile test could be a way of telling America about the defiant posture of India's non acceptance of demands for exchange of signatures on CTBT documents. Apart from many secret missions, both countries have held eight official rounds of talks, but Americans have been pressurising for the signatures without agreeing much to the long list of very ambitious Indian demands which included a permanent seat at United Nation's Security Council, free access to latest computer and nuclear technologies and recognition as a nuclear state.

The world in general has condemned the tests. The White House spokeswoman commented 'We regret the decision to go ahead with the test. The Agni-II test fire appears to be out of step with recent political developments in the region'. Britain foreign office spokesman, regretting that India has tested an upgraded version of its Agni ballistic missile, and urged Delhi to show restrain. He said, 'We regret that India has chosen to conduct a missile test. We continue to believe that restrain in developing missiles and nuclear weapons is in India's long term interest'. Japan's foreign ministry spokesman, called the launch 'truly regrettable' for peace and stability in the region, by saying ' Japan earnestly hopes that this missile testing will neither heighten the tension between India and Pakistan, nor intensify the nuclear arms and missile development race in the region'.

For Pakistan, which has been thrice attacked by India, any such move is seen with great concern and suspicion. Every Indian missile is seen here as a chariot of war because by their statements, Indian leaders have often given an impression as if all Indian guns are always pointing towards Pakistan and the sole purpose of Indian defence budget is to bring Pakistan to its knees. Thus Pakistan's Foreign Minister Mr. Sartaj Aziz, commenting on India test fire said 'It is a negative development and is inconsistent with the objectives of peace and security. . . The Indian armament acquisitions are aggravating the conventional imbalance, which already exists between the two countries. This is a matter of serious concern to us. The development of Agni-II adds to our concern and threatens our security'.

Mr. Gaurav Kampani, a Research Associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey, expressing his views, which clearly depict a Hindu mind, while writing for Indian Rediff net under the title 'A new missile Ñ Agni II Ñ could do away with all these limitations' states, 'The objectives of technology demonstration under the rubric of the nuclear option strategy would be two-fold. First, it would allow the consolidation of strategic technologies that would give India a genuine option to flex its nuclear muscle if warranted by the strategic scenario. More significantly, however, the programme would signal to Pakistan that if confronted with a serious threat to its national security, India could be expected to bring its superior economic and technological capabilities to bear on the strategic equation between the two countries. In other words, India could threaten to lock Pakistan into an open-ended no-holds barred arms race in which it enjoyed all the strategic advantages.

Technology demonstration would also be a warning to Beijing that India takes Chinese meddling in South Asia very seriously. India could thus implicitly threaten China with nuclear deployments if the latter persisted with its goal of strategically trying to contain India in South Asia. Finally, the revival of the Agni programme would be a signal to Washington that India had reached a critical technological threshold. The choice before the United States and its allies would be to either accommodate India's genuine global aspirations through the transfer of civilian and other dual-use space technologies, or face the prospect of India's potential to disrupt international technology-denial cartels.

From a position of strength, India could then seek to negotiate a no-first-deployment regime in South Asia. This would involve the withdrawal and destruction of all classes of ballistic missiles Ñ the Hatf M, and Prithvi series -from both sides of the Indo-Pakistan divide. Conventional wisdom to the contrary, the present generation of ballistic missiles in South Asia does not offer any great strategic value to either side. Their value in a conventional role is worthless. Similarly, the argument that ballistic missiles are the best means for nuclear delivery is dubious. That argument holds true for countries that do not have a sophisticated air force or are separated by large distances. But India and Pakistan share a common border, have unrefined intelligence gathering capabilities, and imperfect air defences. A ballistic missile-based nuclear deterrent would also be very unstable. It would reduce warning time in the event of a nuclear attack to about five minutes. In contrast, aircraft require anything between 30 to 40 minutes to execute a nuclear strike. Aircraft also incorporate positive nuclear command and control systems; i.e. once launched they can be recalled. This is not the case with ballistic missiles.

Today, Pakistan's lack of geographical depth clearly gives India a strategic edge. Indian combat aircraft, when equipped with an appropriate electronic suite and following a terrain-masking, ground-hugging profile, can carry out nuclear strikes against any conceivable target in Pakistan. In contrast, Pakistan, because of India's geographical size and depth does not enjoy similar corresponding advantages. The net result of the development and deployment of long-range ballistic missiles by Pakistan would be to deny India its natural strategic depth.

The time has come for India to act with boldness and imagination. The aim of any grand strategy must be to maximise one's strategic advantages at a minimum military, economic, and political cost. India's bomb lobby, unfortunately, suffers from an acute case of nuclear and missile envy. Our approach instead should be to act proactively in such a way that would allow us to retain a degree of initiative, consolidate our strategic advantage, and act in a manner and time of our own choosing.'

With some similar sentiments, the Indian Prime Minister, appeared on television stating 'In a rapidly changing security environment, India cannot depend on others to defend her. We have to develop our own indigenous capability. Agni is a symbol of resurgent India'. Unfortunately he was wrong on many counts. Firstly, it is not an indigenous effort. It is a missile which the Americans have very actively helped India in acquiring to a very large extent. The Agni-II is a copy of American Scot missile. Agni's architect, Dr Abdul Kalam, received four months training in 1963-64 at NASA's Langley Research Centre in Virginia (Where US Scot rocket was designed) and the Wallops Island Flight Centre on the Virginia coast (where the Scot was flight tested). Similarly another about a dozen countries have helped strengthen the Indian nuclear and missile programmes. So it would be very wrong to say that the Indian Agni missile is indigenous. Secondly, except India , nobody considers Agni as a symbol of resurgent India. Everybody in the whole world, including India's very dear Russian friends consider it a provocative symbol. Rather most consider it a symbol of Barbaric India. Pakistan clearly sees these moves as Indian Chariots of war, bringing memories of direct Indian interference of 1971. And Pakistan is not alone! All Indian neighbours have suffered at some time or the other simply because geographically they have been placed next to a bully. Pakistan had to listen to lots of Indian threats after India got atomic strength in May last year. It was a tit-for-tat reaction by Pakistan, that India suddenly remembered some friendly talk , and Indian Prime Minister took time to visit Pakistan in a bus to talk about peace with Pakistan.

So, cynical it may sound, but when dealing with India, Pakistan has no choice but to go for a tit-for-tat. By now even the American President knows it very well. Luckily, Pakistan has some scientists and engineers whose dedication, professionalism and patriotism is above what words can describe, also we have the infrastructure to deliver the goods to meet the Indian challenges. Thus in response to Agni-II missile and the accompanied intentions, Pakistan fired two of its special medium Range Ballistic Missile, Ghouri-II and Shaheen -I.

Ghouri is named after the great Muslim ruler who defeated the Hindu raja Prithvi. So the very name has a psychological edge. Ghouri-II is an advanced version with many changes. Now the range is 2,000 Km with a payload of 1,000 kg (with reduced payload, the range can be enhanced to 2,300 Km) and can be tipped with any kind of warhead. The two stage, liquid fuelled missile was fired from the firing range of Tilla near Jhelum and took 12 minutes to hit the impact range of 1,165Kms in Jiwani, a coastal area in Balochistan. Its range was reduced because of territorial limits. However, its architect, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan said 'We will request the government to allow the test of Ghouri-III in sea for which the whole sea traffic will have to be stopped'.

Ghouri-II can be fired from a mobile launcher and with its extended range it can easily hit all the major strategic targets all over India. Thus the test fire has proved a total failure of the Indian assessment of eroding deterrence capability of Pakistan. Agni-II was meant to dent Pakistan's capability to maintain deterrence, an assessment which Ghouri-II has proven a complete failure.

Pakistan has a battery of indigenous missiles, some of which still remain to be tested. One such missile is Shaheen-I, which Pakistan took the opportunity to test it on the next day of Ghouri's launch. The solid fuelled single stage missile with very advance terminal guidance system has a range of 600 kilometers with a payload of 1000 kg and can be tipped with any kind of warhead. The missile was fired from a mobile launching pad from Somiani beach , near Karachi and it hit its target with 100% accuracy in Balochistan on the Arabian Sea coast.

With a speed which is three and a half times more than the Indian Agni-II, and a remarkable accuracy of landing only 18 inches away from target after travelling 600 kilometers, makes Shaheen a very lethal weapon . Just for comparison, Agni-II may land anywhere with four miles range and Ghouri -II with one kilometer range.' Shaheen-I demonstrated the skill and capability of Pakistani scientists to fire a terminal-guided missile. 'No other South Asian country possesses the technology used in Shaheen-I', were the remarks of Dr Samar Mubarakmand, the architect of Shaheen series of missiles. Shaheen-11 with a range of about 2300 km is also ready but the test fire shall take place at a later date.

Firing of the two ballistic missiles, shows Pakistan's superiority in tactical weapons and to a large extent has pulled the strategic balance in Pakistan's favour. Hopefully these two missiles should be a reminder of peace and harmonic living to those who dream of being the successors of British Raj in the sub-continent.

The Indian press on the test fire of first Ghouri had gone panicky. This time their strategy is to blame Pakistan with accusations that it is not indigenous. However some amongst them had a heart to speak some truth. Same Mr. Gaurav Kampani while writing on Rediff net, under the title 'What story does Ghouri tells us?' states 'Potentially, the Ghauri poses a precedented threat to India's national security. If deployed with a nuclear warhead, every major Indian population, economic, and military centre would be threatened. Pakistan's attempt to communalise the strategic debate in South Asia by christening its new missile after a Muslim warrior Ñ Shahabuddin Ghauri Ñ not only smacks of political insensitivity, but downright vulgarity. But before pointing fingers across the border, we honestly need to confront a few uncomfortable truths.

First, the Ghauri has come as a response to India's larger and more sophisticated Integrated Guided Missile Programme. Pakistan probably received external assistance in the design and development of Ghauri, but India's own missiles have not entirely been fathered from indigenous genetic stock. Lest it be forgotten, the Prithvi uses a larger reverse-engineered version of the SAM 2 engine. Similarly, the jewel in India's nuclear crown, Agni, is modelled on the Indian Space Research Organisation's space launch vehicle which bears an uncanny resemblance to the American Scot.'

Americans who gave great help in the manufacture of Agni missiles to India , apparently are unhappy with both the countries (India and Pakistan) but more so with India. Washington Times (April 14) writes 'The tests represent a big setback for the Clinton administration, which for the past year has been trying to persuade Indian and Pakistani leaders to step back from the brink. The U.S. imposed limited economic sanctions after India and Pakistan tested nuclear devices last year and has made a ban on missile tests one of the main efforts of its diplomacy. In Washington the administration urged India and Pakistan to resume talks aimed at reducing tensions in the subcontinent. At the same time, U.S officials said that India bears the greatest responsibility because it tested first, both nuclear weapons and the missiles that could be used to deliver them.' The same paper adds, 'The nations' (India and Pakistan) missile tests represent a dangerous new phase in the arms race here, which grabbed the world's attention last year when both India and Pakistan exploded underground nuclear devices. The ominous signal from the missile tests is that each side is moving toward the deployment of nuclear weapons.' But it is so unfortunate, that many western countries have given and continue to give materialist and moral support to India for manufacture of such lethal weapons. Whereas, Pakistan generally gets their sanctions and advise of restrain or lectures on how to achieve high moral grounds by not responding. Obviously it leaves Pakistan with no choice but to resort to exhibiting its indigenous production of weapons.

Thus the test fire of Ghouri-II and Shaheen-I has forcefully brought home the point to Indians that this is year 1999. Now by the Grace of God, Pakistan is well armed to be able to meet whatever missile or nuclear threat the Indians wish to impose on it. The tests have given confidence to Pakistan Planners that though we should never lower our guards, still we are not in year 1971 when the Indians landed forces in the heart of our eastern wing and we had problems replying them. If Indians now think of some adventurism, they will find a suitable reply in many corners of their vast land.

Therefore, it is considered about the right time that the saner and sensible element in India rises to the occasion and both nations move on peace tracks. India has developed a knee-jerk attitude of rejecting all peace initiatives coming from Islamabad. This time why not listen and act on wise words rather than concentrate on the place of their origin. Even after the Ghouri-II, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif very wisely stated, ' 50 years have been lost since independence and now time has come that all issues including the core issue of Kashmir be solved... Race should be for development of people and country and not for arms, so the people of the region should benefit.' After triumphantly leading the nuclear arms race and the latest missile race, India should also exert to lead the race for peace, a race which Pakistanis will be very pleased to reply in tit-for-tat.