| |
If Dr Khan were in India
...
By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - This subject has caught the
attention of India - how would have Pakistan's tainted
nuclear scientist, Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, been treated
had he been in India and leaked as well as shopped
nuclear technology and information around the world?
In this lies the fundamental issue of how Indian
society has developed much differently from Pakistan
since partition created the two countries in 1947. In
this is also an insight into the way corruption is
viewed in both the countries, as well as systemic checks
and balances in place. Also at issue is why Pakistan
needs to be treated in separate terms, instead of the
Western predilection to hyphenate India and Pakistan in
their viewing of the two countries.
The initial
reaction of Pakistani President General Pervez
Musharraf, apparently on being given evidence of nuclear
peddling supplied by United States, was to crack down on
the scientists involved. But Musharraf had to demur.
Taking on Khan - the revered "father" of the Pakistani
bomb - was not going to be easy. And any hostile
treatment of Khan risked him implicating previous
military rulers, the Inter-Services Intelligence as well
as several other leaders past and present. Musharraf's
military advisors thus warned him against any overt
action against Khan. Khan himself at first threatened to
spill the beans. What strengthened Khan's hand were
widespread protests against the treatment meted out to
him, as well as the growing perception that Musharraf
was acting at the behest of the US. Khan's role in
leaking nuclear technology to countries such as North
Korea, Libya and Iran in exchange for enormous sums of
money could be forgiven. After all, it was Khan who had
matched India's nuclear program.
In the end,
Musharraf had no choice but to arrange for a deal with
Khan, and a presidential pardon followed Khan's
admission of guilt on national television - presumably
in return for his silence. The US response has been
muted. In its estimate, Musharraf still remains the best
bet for a moderate Pakistan away from the Islamists.
India, too, has been remiss in its response to
the events in Pakistan, given the peace process that is
in place - talks are due within weeks - and does not
want to indulge in any verbal sparring with its
neighbor. The Indian government has all along kept a
studied silence on the issue, except for a mild
statement criticizing Pakistan issued by Foreign
Minister Yashwant Sinha during the visit of his British
counterpart Jack Straw. Even as election-related
speeches gain tempo in India, nobody from the Indian
establishment has overtly attacked Pakistan.
The
Khan episode has drawn comparison to a recent court
judgment on the late Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi,
though the issue is not on the same scale as Khan's
misdemeanors. After 17 years of hearings, Gandhi was
exonerated from any pecuniary gain in the Bofors gun
deal that bedeviled his career in the latter half of the
1980s. The Swedish guns were among the best in the world
and extensively used during the brief Kargil war in
1999, a low-intensity conflict between India and
Pakistan in 1999. Gandhi enjoyed an unblemished image of
"Mr Clean" when he began his tenure as premier in 1984.
Seeds of the information technology revolution and
economic liberalization were laid in this country,
courtesy his vision. Yet when it came to unsubstantiated
reports of him or his family having benefited from the
Bofors gun deal, the Indian electorate did not forgive
him. He lost subsequent elections and eventually was
assassinated by a Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam member
from Sri Lanka.
The episodes of Khan and Gandhi
are, as said, not related in any way. But in their
stories lies a critical difference in the way corruption
or moral standards in public life are viewed separately
in the two nations. It is not as if corruption is not
endemic in India - it is, as evidenced by a slew of
recent scams involving tinkering with the stock market,
spurious stamp paper, ministers being caught on camera
accepting bribes, and many more. Government officials
make it a habit to harass the public for little
benefits.
But corruption is never justified,
whatever be the ends, through any quibbles, arguments or
public platforms. A recent analysis titled "Why Indian
N-tech wont leak" in The Times of India, reads: "In the
past, other countries like Iraq and Iran have expressed
interest in Indian nuclear and missile technology, but
have been politely shown the 'not for sale' sign. How do
Indian scientists resist the lure to flog WMD technology
around the world? According to a former nuclear
scientist, there are several reasons for this - foremost
being the strong culture of bureaucratic control by the
PMO [Prime Minister's Office] and cabinet.
"In
contrast to Pakistan, Indian nuclear and missile
scientists have not been needlessly lionized and made to
feel they are above the law. Second, Indian efforts have
been largely indigenous and did not require an extensive
network of illegal back-channels where the 'hook or by
crook' and 'money is no object' culture prevailed.
Third, Indian WMD capabilities have evolved with a
strong system of formal and informal governmental
controls. According to a former atomic energy department
head, India has had 'formal and informal' export
controls since the 1950s Atomic Energy Act. The strict
guidelines are not just about missiles and nuclear
weapons, but have even been applied, in one case in the
1980s, to jeeps being sought by Iran, for fear they may
land up in its Iraq war front. Since the 1990s, even
these have been tightened by written guidelines being
disseminated to all public sector units, the departments
of space, defense research and atomic energy, on what
can be exported and to whom."
Indeed, it is the
informal controls in the form of norms of behavior that
define the way the corrupt or others who are perceived
to be corrupt are treated in this country. The
five-year-old Bharatiya Janata Party-led (BJP)
government under incumbent Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee has witnessed several sting operations by
television journalists. The president of the BJP and a
union minister reporting to Vajpayee have been caught on
camera accepting bribes. Similar allegations have been
leveled against Defense Minister George Fernandes.
However, none of these charges have had any impact on
the stature of Vajpayee, whose reputation remains
unblemished in the eyes of the Indian public. Thus, he
stands head and shoulders above the rest. The former BJP
president and the minister stand relegated. Fernandes
has continued as he enjoys the confidence of Vajpayee.
Such has not been the case with Pakistan,
wherein the means are being justified to meet any ends.
The military, including Musharraf, are part and parcel
of the same system that propagates, indeed, supports
such ends. All is fair as long as it meets with the
agenda of placing Pakistan on an even keel militarily
with India. This is surely a recognition that the
Western powers, including the US, need to inculcate in
their dealings with the two countries.
Siddharth Srivastava is a New
Delhi-based journalist.
(Copyright 2004 Asia
Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
