US-India nuclear deal

THE recent Indo-American nuclear deal seems to go beyond the realm of Indo-Pakistan relations and has wider implications. Signed during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the US, the deal virtually amounts to America’s recognition of India as a nuclear power. The significance of the treaty was spelled out by Dr Singh when he said that it should be seen against the backdrop of India’s 1974 nuclear test and the international community’s decision to deny nuclear technology to India. The agreement would now enable India to “break out of its present isolation”, making it possible for it to get the same cooperation from America in nuclear technology as states which are members of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty without New Delhi having signed it. America has, of course, been quick to reassure Pakistan — and China — that the deal was not aimed against them. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rang up President Pervez Musharraf to say that there was no secret deal with New Delhi and that the cooperation basically concerned Indian nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. But, as a State Department official pointed out, the deal constituted “a significant point of departure” from America’s foreign policy “not just in South Asia but worldwide”.

Like all international treaties signed by the US, the agreement is subject to congressional approval. It clearly expects India to divide all its facilities into nuclear and civilian categories and throw the civilian reactors open to international inspection. So far, New Delhi has agreed to place only the two Tarapur nuclear reactors and the one in Rajasthan under international inspection. According to the accord, India will file a declaration with the International Atomic Energy Agency and open all its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection. That is the reason why the Indian opposition has criticized the agreement. Former prime minister Vajpayee has said the agreement had “long-term national security implications” for India. He believes that separating civilian programmes from the military ones would amount to subjecting India’s civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection.

The treaty has also come under criticism in America where experts believe that by signing it the US would appear to violate the mandate of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. Russia and China have so far abided by the NSG. But if America goes ahead with the deal, Moscow and Beijing would be tempted to enter into similar agreements with other states which have nuclear ambitions. Anti-Iran lobbies in America also believe that the deal would allow Russia to use it as an argument for disregarding the NSG mandate and supplying nuclear fuel to Iran.

For Pakistan, there are implications it has to take into account. The difference between reactors geared to military needs and those meant for civilian purposes is thin. Any government can divert products of civilian facilities to military ones if and when it chooses to do so. As analysts in Washington have pointed out, America should now expect a Pakistan enjoying major non-Nato ally status to press the US for a similar deal. The agreement would also enable India to purchase conventional weapons worth five billion dollars from the US. It will also cast its shadow on the nuclear confidence-building talks due in New Delhi between Pakistan and India early next month. As the only superpower with vital stakes in South Asia, the US should follow policies that should restrain rather than encourage an arms race in the region.

Raids on newspapers

THE raids on the offices of some newspapers and weeklies, and the arrest of several journalists and even newspaper hawkers in Karachi by the law enforcement agencies were both unwarranted and arbitrary. This view has nothing to do with one’s condoning the publication and distribution of hate literature. The point is that if any such allegations were involved in the present case, the police could have proceeded against the publications under the relevant law. No notices were served on the publications that were raided and no charges made against those arrested. Arresting the hawkers is even more shocking because they were trying to make a living. There is another aspect to this as well. The raids came after President Pervez Musharraf’s remarks in Islamabad at a youth convention where he spoke strongly against religious extremism and on the need to curb such elements and prevent them from preaching their sectarian and hate-filled views. In that context, the raids would seem to be a knee-jerk reaction to the president’s denunciation of the preachers and practitioner’s of violence and hatred, which he did in the wake of the London attacks of July 7 and the alleged links of the attackers with madressahs in Pakistan. In raiding the offices of some newspapers, did the police set out to make an example of those publications instead of holding them legally answerable in a court of law? Surely, the police and the myriad intelligence agencies must have known who publishes material and hate literature in the country, especially since much of it is published and distributed by organizations with links to extremist religious groups and banned outfits.

The best way for the government to prevent the spread of hatred and violence in the country through hate literate is for it to pursue a policy of keeping a watchful eye on the publication of material preaching, directly or indirectly, the cult of violence and hatred among the people. If a particular publication is found in violation of the law on this score, it can be asked to stop doing so. If such warnings are repeatedly ignored, the publication concerned could be held legally accountable. But on no account can resorting to strong-arm methods or raiding newspaper offices, vandalizing them or arresting those working there be justifiable on any pretext whatsoever.

When justice goes abegging

WHEN it comes to attitudes towards women, Pakistani society is riddled with paradoxes. Overall, it is nearly obsessed with women’s honour and will stop at nothing to protect it. But when it comes to rape, where the woman is never at fault, society displays a strange attitude of accepting the unfortunate happing without demure. In spite of the growing number of reports of crimes against women, society seems to have become immune to these. So how does one respond to the news of an 11-year-old handicapped orphan girl in the NWFP who was brutally assaulted and then hanged to die on May 31? How should one console her elderly grandfather who, desperate seeking justice appealed to the president and prime minister to bring the culprits to trial? Should we celebrate that on Wednesday the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court took suo motu notice of the murder and directed the police to appear before the court with the case’s record? Thankfully, the judiciary is taking notice of such horrific crimes otherwise all hope would be lost. But that is not a solution. Laws need to be suitably revised, not reviewed for the umpteenth time.

While various organizations and government agencies figure out a long-term strategy in how to sensitize society to crimes against women, focus should be on urgent remedial actions. The police need to be properly trained to deal with crimes against women as there are many localities that do not have a women’s police station to deal with gender-specific crimes. Those responsible for bungling cases, making it possible for criminals to go scot free, should be taken to task. The police have to give people a sense of security and protection and this it can do by being alert and efficient in dealing with crimes and criminals and remove the belief that only presidents and prime ministers can provide justice to victims.