Whom should we blame for anuclear war between India and Pakistan?


LONDON – If nuclear war does break out between India and Pakistan they will only have themselves to blame. Since the early 1970s they have been walking along the unmarked path that leads to nuclear holocaust and enough people both within and without have told them how to turn back. Even today if President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee were as serious as they say they are about avoiding nuclear war they could sit down for two hours and sort the whole thing out. It is not that complicated.

The late Mahbub ul Haq, at one time Pakistan’s minister of finance and one of the most creative minds to have come out of a land that has produced more than its fair share of brilliant heads, suggested six years ago the creation of a UN trusteeship to last 10 or 15 years over both Indian-held and Pakistani-held Kashmir. “Why not withdraw armed forces from inside Kashmir to near the border belt, withdraw all administrative machinery, open the border between the two parts of Kashmir and give the Kashmiris themselves a chance for self-government and peaceful development?”

Yet if Pakistan and India have only themselves to blame for today’s decisions or non-decisions, historians will doubtless extend the culpability in many directions. To the British first and foremost, who divided India and left without resolving the issue of the Moslem state of Kashmir inside a predominantly Hindu India. There was not much point in spilling 250,000 lives in the pursuit of partition if that problem couldn’t have been solved at the same time. To India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who repeatedly miscalculated by refusing to take seriously Mohammed Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League. At one time Jinnah would have worked to keep India whole as long as there was an important place for Muslims and the League. And again to Nehru for promising the Kashmiris a referendum on independence which 54 years later India has still not delivered on.

In more recent times much responsibility needs to heaped on the shoulders of that most pacific of all American presidents, Jimmy Carter. At that time when India’s prime minister was the near pacifist Morarji Desai it could have been possible to persuade India to renounce its quest for nuclear weapons, if Washington had used a little more carrot and a bit less stick, in its attempt to pressure India to sign a safeguards agreement on the use of spent nuclear fuel. The quid pro quo would have even for America to step up the pace in negotiating a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to honour its promise implicit in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to get rid of its nuclear weapons at a faster pace. Such a compromise would have served the world well; a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would not only have slowed the American-Soviet arms race it would have made the Indian and Pakistan nuclear bombs much more difficult to develop.

Carter compounded his earlier errors by allowing himself to be thrown off course by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Carter put his telescope to his blind eye and ignored what Pakistan’s nuclear establishment was up to in return for forging an anti-Soviet partnership to arm the mujahidin. For years after, under Carter and then under Ronald Reagan, the White House went through an annual ritual of giving assurances that all was well in Pakistan’s nuclear laboratories. It was not only an ill-conceived policy it was an unnecessary one.

But the blame goes further back than Carter, to Richard Nixon. It was he and Henry Kissinger, with their grand notions of realpolitik, who favoured the ploy of a nuclear-armed China to play off against the Soviet Union. Nixon made it abundantly clear that he gave so much time and attention to China and so little to India because the former was nuclear armed and the latter was not. Alas, it took the big bang of India’s first open nuclear bomb test almost exactly four years ago to penetrate where all the good journalism, books and wise diplomatic missives- that have argued that it was democratic India that has the best long run future of all the big Asian countries- had failed to reach.

Blame China too. It was Chinese scientific and material aid that made the Pakistani nuclear bomb possible. China was more aware of India’s future potential than was America, yet like so many decisions made by the big powers it was a policy that has totally backfired, as India develops a stockpile of nuclear missiles more aimed at China than at Pakistan.

The western powers – all of the big ones including Russia – are now paying in anxiety for the many years of living out a Faustian bargain between their foreign and economic policies on the one hand and their nuclear proliferation commitments on the other. For reasons of financial self interest, many western countries until relatively recently failed to police their high technology exports rigorously enough. The ability to build stocks of plutonium or enriched uranium and construct a bomb slipped through to countries as diverse as Israel, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa (although the latter three of their own volition decided to forgo their nuclear weapons).

If twelve million people have to die in the world’s first nuclear war there will be a lot of decision makers still alive who should feel more than a twang of their consciences. Why have our political leaders been so myopic and careless of our future well-being?

I can be reached by phone +44 7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com

Copyright © 2002 By JONATHAN POWERFollow this link to read about – and order – Jonathan Power’s book written for the

40th Anniversary of Amnesty International

“Like Water on Stone – The Story of Amnesty International”

Foreign affairs columnist, film-maker and author

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Peace is promoted by constructive proposals and dialogue Four preceding PressInfos have expressed concern over — and criticised — the ongoing, militarisation of the EU. Some will say: but there are no alternatives. We believe that there are always alternatives, that democracies are characterised by alternatives and choice, and that openly discussed alternatives will improve the quality and legitimacy of society’s decision–making. In addition, it is an intellectual and moral challenge to not only criticise but also be constructive. If we only tell people that we think they are wrong, they are not likely to listen. However, if we say: what are your views on this set of ideas and steps? — we may sometimes engage them in dialogue and sow a seed. Most people in power circles live their daily lives in in a time frame and a social space where certain ideas, viewpoints and concepts are just not...
Photos © TFF 2000 Read PressInfo 90 “Lift the Sanctions and Bring More Aid to Yugoslavia” See Pictures from Belgrade © TFF 2000 Please reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item, but please retain the source.
Av FRANK SØHOLM GREVIL 16 augusti 2004  Vi er nu nået til tredje akt i det absurde teaterstykke, der i analogi med de store skueprocesser i Moskva 1936-38 er blevet døbt ‘Grevil-sagen’. Første akt bestod i min anonyme fremlæggelse af egenhændigt nedklassificerede rapporter i Berlingske Tidende i februar og marts. Andet akt udgjordes af min fremtræden med navn og billede i Information i april samt den efterfølgende mediestorm, som uden min direkte medvirken kostede en forsvarsminister taburetten samt en sigtelse for brud på tavshedspligten. Tredje akt bliver en retssag, hvor jeg står tiltalt for at have overtrådt straffelovens bestemmelser om uberettiget videregivelse eller udnyttelse af fortrolige oplysninger. Statsanklageren har ovenikøbet valgt at påberåbe sig særligt skærpende omstændigheder. Da jeg aldrig har modtaget betaling for at stille rapporterne til rådighed eller lade mig interviewe, må det skærpende bestå i, at “videregivelsen eller udnyttelsen er sket under sådanne omstændigheder, at det påfører...

Recent Articles

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.

TFF on Substack

Discover more from TFF Transnational Foundation & Jan Oberg.

Most Popular

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Read More
Screenshot-2026-05-15-103534
Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Screenshot-2026-05-12-104023
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (2)
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (1)
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551
In contrast to most, we’ll bring alternatives, solutions, hope and strategies for a better future. Times are dangerous, yes, but that only intensifies the need for constructive thinking and action! Jan Oberg, TFF director April 13, 2026 The new TFF Peace Pulse uses video messages in a new way: Max 3-5-minute-long comments, ideas or perhaps mini-lectures, all about peace – positive peace. We launch them today on April 13, 2026 with a carefully crafted visual aesthetic fitting the content. We hope to publish them regularly from now on. We launch Peace Pulse (PP) – for a number of reasons. The world is in chaos, and there are countless reasons to feel concerned, frustrated, even angry. The atmosphere is saturated with doom and gloom, with negative energy and rear‑mirror thinking, while vision, imagination, alternatives, strategies and genuine future‑mindedness remain in short supply. And without them, we simply can’t save the world. Looking at problems from a hundred angles will...
IMG_5165 (1)
PART II — Publishing Peace in a System That Prioritises Militarism Jan Oberg, TFF director April 10, 2026 How TFF Maintains a Daily Voice in a Digital World Built for Noise This article is part of the series “TFF at 40″ and it invites you to learn about Four Decades of Publishing Peace. It takes a look at how a small, people‑financed peace foundation has communicated across four generations of technology — from wax stencils and fax machines to mass email and Substack — and why TFF continues to publish every single day in a system that rewards noise, conflict, and militarism. ◆ What it means to publish peace every single day in a digital system built for 24/7 news and other noise, confrontation, and militarism. How TFF’s independence, continuity, and global readership defy algorithms, donor cycles, and Western media censorhip — and why the Majority World keeps listening. When the...