05/19/98 - 1804

India Testing Nukes

USA (VNN) - by Shyamasundara dasa

An Historical Perspective on the Indian Nuclear Crisis.

"...Presently the Indian PM maybe receive criticism and sanctions from other nations, but India is whole-heartedly supporting him. An overwhelmingly majority of more than 85 - 90% of Indians support his decision to go nuclear..."

Perhaps we should try to understand why the Indian government has done this.

Since the bloody partition, India has fought several wars with Pakistan, and one with China. In all the wars it was the other country which was the agressor, and not India. In the last war, with Pakistan in 1971, it started because of the civil war in what is now called Bangladesha, which was then part of Paksitan (Pakistan was divided into West Pakistan and East Pakistan with India in the middle). About 10 million refugees fled Bangladesha into Bengal and other Indian states. (This is why Calcutta has so many street people; many are from Bangladesha.) India asked for international aid to help with the situation. (Imagine the burden on your country if over night, 10 million people showed up on your doorstep.) No one helped. Finally India intervened on the side of Bangladesha to stop the civil war, because it was spilling over into India. Pakistan directly attacked India, and was backed by the USA and China. India counter attacked, and drove the Pakistanis out of India. China threated to interveen. The UN arbitrated a cease fire.

It was only after this last attack on India that they began developing nuclear weapons for defensive purposes.

Historians have noted that traditionally, for thousands of years, Indian rulers have never had an agressive expansionist policy as did others: Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, Americans, Europeans, etc. India has been successively invaded and raped for the last 2500 years. First the Persians in 550 BC, then the Macedonians 326 BC, then the Huns, and various waves of Mongols, Afgans, Pathans, Persians, Arabs and other Islamic lead groups starting around 800-900 AD who conquered India till the British and French fought for control of India. It is interesting to note that just as the Indians where about to free themselves from the Islamic domination, was when the Europeans arrived to take over. India has been a dominated country for a long time because of weak defense, so it is understandable that they don't want to be dominated by others again. "He who wants peace, should prepare for war."

A side note:

Why was Japan never a colony of a European power like India, China, Indo-china, Philippines etc.?

In the 16th-17th centuries the Portuguese and others came to Japan to start trade(?) as they did in India and China, etc. Their missionaries also came. But after some time the Japanese expelled them and instituted an isolationist policy which lasted till the 1850's when Commadore Perry sailed into Yokohama Harbour and demanded that Japan open up. The Japanese realized they had to act fast or they would become a subservient client states like the Indians, Chinese and others. The Japanese decided to open up but at the same time they underwent an internal revolution called the Meiji reformation, to quickly modernize Japan from a medieval feudal society into a modern state. They did it in less than 50 years. They went from being on the brink of being eaten up by the European powers in the 1850-60s to becoming a world power by 1905. That was the year they devastatingly defeated Russia, a major world power, in the Russo-Nipponese war. The Japanese, of course, over did it, and they themselves became agressors in Manchuria and China, eventually getting into WWII.

The lesson is clear, however. If you want to keep out aggressors you have a strong defense. That, by the way, is what the Kshtriyas (the administrators) of a country are supposed to do. That is their duty. So it is very understandable that India's leaders feel that they have to defend their country from groups who have traditionally felt that they have the right to rape and pillage India. (Please go to any library and read the last 1000 years of India's history to find out what horrors that entails.)

Please note, in this case, who is complaining the loudest: Pakistan, the US and China. When China supplied rocket technology to Iran, the USA complained, but when China supplied the same technology to Pakistan, they said nothing. Both China and Pakistan have attacked India and both are now occupying Indian territory. For years, Pakistan has been fomenting unreast in India, and was in recent years caught dumping arms from planes over rural India to arm various subversive groups.

So what should India do? Just lie down so that they can be over-run again?

Since traditionally India has been a non-agressive nation, it is highly unlikely that India would use its nuclear capability to start a war.

I am not saying that I am made very happy by these recent developments. A nuclear war in that region would lead to devastating loss of life on all sides, and the nuclear fallout would pollute vast regions of high density population. Leading to even more loss of life. More important to me, would be the desecration of so many holy places in Bharat Bhumi.

But at least we should try to understand the historical perspective of what is going on, and not just point fingers at the Indian PM for being a "dirty politician".

yhs shyamasundara dasa