| Chapter 12 |
The Threats From Without |
|
It would be bad enough if India had to suffer threats from within only, at the hands of Kashmiri secessionists, at the mercy of the sometimes doubtful allegiance of its 120 million strong Muslim community, under the onslaught of its westernised "elite" minority, or from its missionary contingent. But India is also under attack from without, not only from its Muslim neighbours, who are all offspring of a once Greater India; but also from her non-Muslim neighbours, from China - and even further away, from the West, particularly the USA, who does not always grasp India's problems AND its relevance to Asia and the world. A) Pakistan Ah, Pakistan, finally, everything reverts to Pakistan, whether you talk about Kashmir, Ayodhya, Punjab, or the Bombay blasts. Everywhere the Indian Government says it sees the "Pakistani hand" behind it. It is an hostile hand, they add, active, militant, whose ultimate goal is the destruction of India. Is actually, Pakistan the continuing incarnation of those Muslim invaders who raped India from the middle of the 7th century onwards? Militant Hindus contend that nothing has changed: "their cry is still the same: "Dar-ul-Islam", the house of Islam. Yesterday they used scimitars, today they have the atomic bomb; but the purpose is identical, only the weapons have evolved: to conquer India, to finish what the Mughal Emperors were not able to achieve". To reason with Pakistan is useless, they conclude, "for once again they are only putting in practice what their religion teaches them every day -that 'the Pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the meanest of creatures'. Or 'Slay the infidels, wherever ye find them and take them captive and besiege them and prepare them for all kinds of ambush'. Or again: 'Choose not thy friends among the Infidels till they forsake their homes and the way of idolatry. If they return to paganism then take them whenever you find them and kill them'. All these quotations are taken from the Koran and are read everyday to the faithful by their mollahs.(Koran 98:51-9:5-4:89) Is Pakistan's war against India then a Muslim "jihad", the ultimate jihad against the Infidel, which if necessary will utilise the ultimate weapon, nuclear bombs? And as in the case of Ayodhya, the whole of Islam might side with Pakistan, for to their eyes India is still the Infidel, the Idolater, which the Koran asks them to slay. Says Elst: "if tomorrow the Pakistani start the Prophet's first nuclear war against an Infidel country (India), a billion Muslims will feel compelled to side with this muhajid struggle and dissenters will be careful not to protest aloud." But then you also have to understand the Pakistani point of view: take Kashmir for instance. If one goes by the logic of Partition, then at least the Kashmir valley, which is in great majority Muslim, (and it should be emphasised that for long the Hindus in Kashmir exploited and dominated the Muslims -who are getting back at them today), should have reverted to Pakistan. It should be clear also that Pakistan never forgot the humiliating loss of Bangladesh at the hands of India, although India only helped Bangladesh to gain its freedom in the face of what the Bangladeshis say was Pakistani genocide. Zia's emergence was a result of that humiliation and the whole policy of proxy war by supporting the separatist movements in Punjab and Kashmir, is a way of getting back at India. And the same can be said about the nuclear bomb, for Pakistan has realised, after having lost three wars, that both numerically and strategically, it can never beat India in a conventional conflict. It is also clear when one goes to Pakistan today, that the country has evolved a soul of its own, has its individual identity and that in fact they have been able to do better than India in many fields. Their politicians are more accessible than in India for instance; their bureaucrats more friendly; and PIA is definitely a better airlines than Indian Airlines ! Finally, can Pakistanis be accused of all ills that befall India ? The Indian Press has become possessed of total paranoia when it comes to Pakistan and Kashmir, always pointing a finger at its neighbour. But many of India's probelms are of her own making. The Pakistani press is also often more balanced than in India. In Karachi, when two American diplomats were killed in March 95, the Sind Chief Minister hinted darkly at a " foreign hand ", meaning India. But not so the Karachi Press, which talked freely about the possible suspects, that is the MQM haqiqi, or the drug Mafia. Thus, Indians can cry themselves hoarse about Pakistani treachery and see the evil hand of Islamabad everywhere, even sometimes behind events where Pak is not involved. But then the Indian Government should only blame themselves. For have they not recognised at independence the geographical and political reality of Partition and have they not continued to do so up to now? Is there any political leader in India who dares say today that India and Pakistan are ONE? Is there any voice to proclaim the truth in a loud and clear voice, as Sri Aurobindo did in 1947: "But the old communal division into Hindu and Muslim seems to have hardened into the figure of a permanent division of the country. It is hoped that the Congress and the nation will not accept the settled fact as for ever settled, or as anything more than a temporary expedient. For if it lasts, India may be seriously weakened, even crippled: civil strife may remain always possible; possible even a new invasion and foreign conquest. THE PARTITION OF THE COUNTRY MUST GO"... The menace from within cannot be tackled unless the menace from without is solved. India and Pakistan (+ Bangladesh) are ONE. And as long as Partition remains, India will not be able to live in peace: Ayodhya, Kashmir, Bangladeshi infiltration and a potential (nuclear?) war with Pakistan, are always possible. B) THE OTHER NEIGHBOURS How is it that India is almost universally disliked, sometimes even hated by her neighbours, whether they are Muslim Bangladeshis, Buddhist Sri Lankans, or even Hindu Nepalese? Journalists, both in South Asia, as well as in India, are fond of saying that it is because India is a great bully, hegemonistic in her tendencies. The present Prime Minister of India seems to agree with them : he is best known for his " Gujral doctrine ", which could be summed-up in six words: " give without expexting anything in return ". In the name of this doctrine, Mr Gujral as Minister of External Affairs of the Gowda Governement, gave Bangladesh an extra share of the Ganges water, when India does not have enough for herself; and liberalised visa applications for Pakistanis wanting to visit India - which Islamabad did not reciprocate. Is then India a great bully? At least in her past history, she has never shown any hegemonistic inclinations, her religion never tried to convert anybody and her armies never marched into other countries -the same cannot be said about Islam, or Christianity with her Crusades, or even the more peaceful Buddhist missionaries... Yet at one time India's influence, solely due to the sheer greatness of her culture and Hindu dharma, extended as far as China on one side and the Mecca on the other. Even today, whether in Thailand, Mauritius, Cambodia, or even Bangladesh and Pakistan, there is a tremendous leftover of India's predominance. The key word must be fear. All these countries are afraid of India, not entirely because she is a great bully, but because they unconsciously realise that they all sprang from India's vast bosom- and that one day, sooner or later, they might very well all return to that bosom, under whatever form. Nepal is a very good example of that India-hate syndrome. Here is a wonderful country, with simple and friendly people, which is the only Hindu nation in the world, which is so similar in many ways to India, that there is no reason to be antagonistic to a country with which they have so much in common. Yet the king has often been able to play a divide and rule game by using the Chinese and blaming India for all the ills of Nepal. The same goes for Bangladesh. Bangladeshis, it is often said, are Bangladeshis first and Muslims second; this is why they separated from Pakistan, where they were treated as second-class citizens. And in truth, Bangladeshis are a marvelous race, affectionate as all Bengalis, poetic, humorous. Their society used to be - and still is in many ways - one of the most open and tolerant in the world of Islam, which gives its women a unique place. Yet President Ershad was able to islamize in a radical way this nation which stood proud of its secular history. Yet every time there is a flood, the Bangladeshis blame India and not the corruption of their own Government and their habit of living-off the formidable funds they constantly get from Aid agencies. Yet, a Taslima Nasreen, whatever her personal failings (love of publicity, inflated ego, unnecessary shocking of Islamic feelings), when she dares in her book " Laljja ", to utter the truth about the atrocities perpetrated on Hindus after the destruction of the Ayodhya mosque, is hunted down by obscure fundamentalists groups, let down by her government, betrayed by her own people. Same phenomenon in Sri Lanka. Extraordinary country that erstwhile Ceylon; God gave it everything: extraordinary climate, lush country, incredible diversity of races and religions, an easy-going and friendly people, who even welcomed its invaders. Yet the hate that the Sinhalese have for Indians is something to be seen to be believed. Again it is a hate which is fostered by their political leaders: the late President Premadasa had become a great adept at using the hate-India carrot every time he got in trouble. He also tried to utilise too many times the LTTE, sometimes killing them, sometimes wooing them- and got assassinated in the process. And why should India be blamed for Sri Lanka's ills? The Sri Lankans can go on accusing Mrs Gandhi's of having abetted Tamil Militants in the late seventies. But was it Mrs Gandhi who discriminated for 40 years against the Tamil minority of Sri Lanka? Was it Mrs Gandhi who regularly prodded Sinhalese crowds to indulge in pogroms against the Tamils, thereby building-up a wall of hatred, so that today the Tamils in Sri Lanka cannot trust the Sinhalese anymore and want nothing but total independence? Why blame India for Sri Lanka's problems, a nation, who thanks to the lack of foresight of three generations of Sinhalese politicians, produces nothing today but tea -and that even at the mercy of its Tamil workers imported by the British - and lives on a tourist industry which in turn is at the mercy of civil war? India has also to account for the hostility of the Gulf countries. And very unfortunately, India's hands are bound, because of its millions of nationals, most of them Muslims, who work in the Gulf and regularly send home precious foreign exchange. But does India realise that this foreign exchange is sometimes a poisoned gift, that these Indian Muslims often bring home a more militant Islam? The Bombay blasts which followed the destruction of the Babri Masjid, were the perfect example of that threat to India from the Gulf countries: not only did the Indian Muslims who were the hands that executed, receive training arms and financing from Pakistan, but some of the Gulf countries must have had a prior knowledge of them. The fact that the perpetrators were able to transit through two of these Gulf countries after their deed is proof enough: the police of these countries are everywhere and are totalitarian tools to the monarchies; they must have known when the Memons entered the country and exactly where they were staying. It would have been a simple matter to stop them from leaving both the countries till an extradition was officially asked for. Yet they chose to let them go and now " Tiger " Memon has gone into hiding in Pakistan and India will probably never see him again and solve the mystery of the Bombay blasts. Why did Dubai and Jeddah let him go? And why did the Indian Government did nothing to prevent it? One has to understand the Arab psyche: by destroying the Ayodhya mosque, it is the whole Muslim world which secretly or overtly has felt insulted and humiliated. Furthermore, none of the Gulf countries have forgotten India's support to Iraq during the Gulf war. IS IT POSSIBLE THEN THAT IT WAS DECIDED TO TEACH INDIA A LESSON? That Pakistan and "some" other Muslim countries funded and planned, or at least knew in advance, of the bombings attempts, of which Bombay was supposed to be only the first of a series? Is this a warning of the Muslim word to Hindu India? But who are the fundamentalists? Who are the murderers? Who are the Nazis? Who are the Hitlers? 3) CHINA It is the infamous 1972 "historical trip" of Richard Nixon to Peking which set the trend: henceforth, the West was gradually going to put all its chips on the Chinese, banking that one day, its investments, political and economical, will bring enormous returns. In the process, the West conveniently forgot that the Chinese had killed 1,2 million Tibetans, one of the worst genocides of humanity (*). Tianamen, showed again openly the totalitarian face of Chinese communism, but the United States preferred to forget it as fast as possible. The Chinese, clever as they are, make from time to time a few Human Right concessions here and there, such as releasing a handful of dissident student leaders (who by the way, have never raised their voices against the Tibetan genocide), and at the same time they harden their tone. Washington l pretends to be satisfied and gives again the green light to its army of businessmen, waiting impatiently to place their green dollars in the huge Chinese slot machine. But is the West ready to pay the price for that impatience? Because finally, economical liberalisation or not, China remains a communist country with a dictatorial leadership, probably the only one worth that name left in the world. And communism means instability, as the sudden crumbling of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, has recently proved. What is going to happen to the billions of dollars of Western investment, if there is tomorrow a counter-revolution in China -or if communism shows again its true totalitarian face? And indeed, after the death of Deng, the first signs of the crumbling of the Chinese edifice, were the bomb blasts engineered by Muslim separatists in the province of Zinkiang. But the ultimate test will be the transfer of Hong-Kong in July 97. Either its democratic spirit will spread to China, or Beijing will have to clamp down on its civil liberties. China's true " asuric " aspect will then be exposed. And maybe the industrialized world'sts attention will then shift to India, the " other giant " in Asia, which has shown true democracy in its fifty years of independence. India, which is ever ready to close its doors to her potential friends, such as Israel, with whom she partakes so many similarities (problems with a Muslim minority, ecological hurdles, nuclear threats), has always been duped by China. Take Tibet for instance. Since 1950, when the Chinese invaded this wonderful, peace loving nation, which boasted the highest spiritualised society in the world (although quite feudal), 1,2 million Tibetans have been killed, either directly: shooting, death squads, torture - or indirectly: concentration camps, prison, or famines. 6254 monasteries, most of them ancient, have been razed to the ground. 60% of religious, historical and cultural archives have been destroyed. A quarter million Chinese troops are occupying Tibet. One Tibetan out of ten is still in jail. There are today In Tibet 7,5 million Chinese settlers for six million Tibetans- in many places such as the capital, Lhassa, Tibetans are outnumbered two to one... Do you think these statistics come from the Tibetans themselves? No at all. They are part of Resolution Number 63, adopted by the United States Congress on the 16th May 1989 and they have been substantiated by the American Secret Services. And do you know why China is ready to pay such a heavy price for Tibet, both in terms of the tremendous cost of keeping an occupation army and the harm done to its international image? The answer is simple: China has transferred one third of its nuclear arsenal to Nagchuka, 25O kms away from Lhassa, a region full of huge caves, which the Chinese have linked together by an intricate underground network and where they have placed installed, according to American Intelligence estimates, 90 Intermediate Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles... There are two reasons to it: The first is that this part of Tibet is always covered by a thick blanket of clouds, which makes it extremely difficult for the spy satellites. And the second and most important, is that Tibet is of a great strategic military importance to China, because being on a high plateau, it overlooks...Who? Russia and India! But Russia's back is broken and it is no more a danger to China and it is thus towards North Indian cities that most of the nuclear missiles are pointed. This raises several important questions. India in her generosity, (through Jawarlhal Nehru), welcomed the Dalaļ-Lama and his followers in 1959 and allowed them to settle in Dharamsala, where thanks to their spiritual leader's guidance, the Tibetans were able to recreate a small Tibet, complete with Government in exile, schools, monasteries, Tibetan medicine and arts. It is actually the only real thing that is left of Tibetan culture and civilisation today -and if ever the Tibetans recuperate Tibet, it will have to be re-transplanted to what has become a near completely Chinese Tibet. But the Chinese have never forgiven India (see chapter on Nehru) for their generosity and compassion towards the Tibetans. And although since Rajiv went to Peking, later followed by Narashima Rao, some progress has been made, the question remains: can Indians trust the Chinese? There are two superpowers in the making in Asia: India and China. The West, seems to have lost the absolute predominance it used to enjoy and with its slow decline, it will drag in recession many of the so-called tigers of Asia, which vitally need US and Western political support for the growth of their economy: the Koreas, Singapore, Thailand, or Taiwan and Hong-Kong, which will be swallowed back by China. And ultimately India and China will be the only superpowers left with Japan in their shadow. But one will be a democratic country, and the other still be a communist dictatorship, with a formidable military arsenal -nuclear and otherwise- at her disposal for her greedy appetite. China seems to be the direct adversary of India, both economically and militarily -and not Pakistan as the Indian Government wants its citizens to believe. 4) THE WEST And finally no chapter on the threat to India from without, can be complete without a mention of the threat from the Western world, particularly the United States, which seems sometimes to unconsciously wish a divided and weakened India. And did not Senator Galbraith say after the exploding of Yugoslavia that "India is next"? Actually it makes sense to view that external threat by making a parallel, say between Palestine and Kashmir, or even Yugoslavia and India, as both have been equated. For make no mistake about it: the tears that the West is shedding on Bosnia and on the ethnic cleansing of Muslims are crocodile tears. What the West wanted first was the complete destruction of a unified Yugoslavia, which was one of the most enlightened communist countries and to break the back of the Serbs, who alone have a sense of identity and history and who have retained some of their communist commitments- their greatest sin in the eyes of the US. As for Palestine, it is the perfect example of how Arab negationism and clever propaganda, instilled both fear and pity to the West and have succeeded to hide the fact that the Jews have also a right to be in Palestine and that 6 million of them have been killed in cold blood by Hitler, a truth that Arabs deny as "Zionist propaganda", witness the many Islamic countries who have banned Schindler's list. 5) THE SPLITTING OF INDIA IN THE LIGHT OF BOSNIA , PALESTINE AND IRAQ The massacre in 1994 of 40 Palestinians while praying in their mosque, was indeed terrible and should be condemned from every quarter for its atrocity. The international media gave it a wide, near absolute coverage for days altogether, which is proper, considering the grave political implications it had and the immensity of the human tragedy. The Arab world was quick to show its indignation and anger. Right again; after all, these people were murdered by a fanatic while praying to Allah, the universal God of all Muslims. The Palestinians were equally swift in their reaction: cutting-off all negotiations with the Israelis and demanding stringent conditions for the resuming of talks, including proper protection for all Palestinians. Correct again. Everyone thus responded in the proportion demanded by the inhumanity of the deed and the whole Western world, although its affinities, political or ethnical, would tend to rest more with the Israelis, showed its indignation at a gross violation of a basic Human Right, that to practice one's religion without being shot at by terrorists. Quite right, say many Indians, terrible indeed. But what about us? Did anyone in the world raise a little finger when whole bus loads of Hindus were massacred in cold-blood in Punjab and recently in Kashmir? Did the international press vent its indignation when Bombay was shattered by Muslim bombs in 1992? Did the West take notice of the murdering of Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir, resulting in the entire community fleeing their 5000 year old homeland? Did the political leaders of the earth react to the hounding out by Afghan fundamentalists of 50.000 Hindus and Sikhs, who had made this country their own for several generations? (Remember how for months the international media covered the handful of Palestinians chased in no-man's land by the Israelis?). Did the Islamic world ever apologise for the hundreds of Hindu temples razed to the ground in Bangladesh and Pakistan after the destroying of a single mosque in Ayodhya ? Indians seems to have a point there. And they have another valid question: why do the Palestinians get so much mileage, so much world coverage, so much international empathy for a single event, however outrageous it is? And why do we get hardly any sympathy for our plight, certainly a hundred times worse -at least in sheer numbers. Not only that, they could add, but also, O supreme irony, we even get censored at the hands of the international community for our human record, which is certainly better than that of most of the Arab countries crying themselves hoarse about the repression and genocide in India ! Looking at the second event, that of Bosnia, we find again that the international community's outrage is totally justified. Here are innocent people, particularly in Sarajevo, who happen to be Muslims, who are massacred in an apparent wilful campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. Is not then the unconditional support of the Western world fully valid, even if they risk, by this active, semi-military involvement, to be dragged into a war for the Balkans, as they were 80 years ago? And is it not also absolutely right for the body of the United Nations to help carve an independent state, where Bosnian Muslims will be at peace, protected from the genocide tendencies of the Serbs and free to express their own religious identity ? But then, the same type of reasoning, the same pattern is sought to be applied to Kashmir, and eventually it will also be applied to Assam and Mizoram, thanks to their Christian missionaries: is it not just also, that the international community should pressurise India to give Kashmiris their freedom of self-determination, so that they can be protected from Indian genocide and the Hindus' cultural grip? In these two above-mentioned international events, the world only looks at the consequences, the immediate, the present, the superficial, without caring to dig at the roots, to examine the past to have a better understanding of the present. For example, does anyone care to remember that the Muslims of Bosnia belong to the same ethnic stock as their Serbian brothers and that they were once converted, probably forcibly, by the Turks in 1463 ? Does anybody care to remember, that in the same way, Kashmiris were almost entirely Hindus or Buddhists, before they were forcibly converted by invading Arabs four centuries ago? True, today these Muslims, whether in Bosnia, or Kashmir, have not only accepted as their own a religion which their ancestors had hated, but they have also often taken-up the strident cry of Islam. And finally, the double standards of the West condemn India in Kashmir, when not so long ago they were the great colonisers, the great plunderers of the Third World, where they left an utter mess? When even today the British to retain the Falkland islands, thousands of miles away from Great Britain, fought a war and killed innocent Argentineans in the process. If the United States can invade Panama because it feels its interests are threatened there, if France battles to keep Corsica in its fold, an island which could as well belong to Italy, why should not India retain what has been hers for 5000 years? The Indian army is fighting a guerrilla war in Kashmir, and there are bound to be casualties on both sides. So what? The world did not shed a tear about the 100.000 Iraqi soldiers killed during the Gulf war, many of them fleeing the allied forces. The Gulf war was also a perfect symbol of this new Western Crusade, of which the UN has become the willing and submissive tool. The West and particularly the United States, have set certain moral, Human Right, democratic standards, which should be applicable only to themselves and are seeking through the UN forces to implement these standards. But in Kuwait, the US and its allies, only went in to protect their selfish oil interests, which are vital to the continuity of western domination on the world. Kuwait is a non-democratic, feudal, fundamentalist monarchy, compared to which Iraq is a very enlightened, secular and modern nation, notwithstanding Saddam Husain. Was it necessary to kill a hundred thousand human lives, just to get at that one man, however monstruous he may be? And will tomorrow the US use the UN forces in Kashmir, as in Bosnia, or Somalia? India should learn a few lessons from the Chinese, who, whatever their faults, take no nonsense from the world and just plod on steadily on the course they have chartered for themselves. India is one of the oldest and proudest civilisations of this earth and they have nothing to be ashamed of. Let India stand up and protect herself both from internal as well as external threats, with determination and confidence. 6) The Nuclear option Should India (and does) India have the atomic bomb ? Should India freeze her Integrated Missile Programme, under the pressure of the United States (as she seems to have already partially done) ? Will Narashima Rao be remembered in history as the Prime Minister who scrapped India's potential nuclear power and delivery clout ? All weapons of war are a perversion of man's greed and the ultimate attribute of the misuse he has achieved over matter. Thus, ideally, they should all be banned, or else slowly phased out until we all live in a weaponless world, for the simple reason that they would not be needed anymore and that man would have outgrown their folly. So more than anything, the atom bomb symbolises that folly, because at a single stroke, at the simple push of one button by a misguided hand, or though the order of a mad leader, thousands of lives can be obliterated in a single second, entire cities be wiped out in a single flash. The film, The Day After, has given us an inkling of that terror, a glimpse of that horror. The atom Bomb also demonstrates the limit of man's command over matter. For what use is that material mastery to man, when he has no control over his impulses, when he is still unable not only to love his human brothers, but even to reason with himself not to use his domination over matter to harm others. And ultimately, his might may slip out of his hands, because material mastery without inner control is incomplete and dangerous. For this and many other reasons, should not India then voluntarily forsake nuclear power and cap its missile programme and become a true non-violent country, in the spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi ? But have those who are pushing this theory forward read properly the Baghvad Gita ? For once more, what does the Baghavad tell us ? It does not say, as Christians do, or as the Mahatma purported, that all violence is wrong. It asserts that when violence is absolutely necessary, when it is used for defending one's country, one's wife, brothers, sisters, then it becomes Dharma -duty- and is acceptable, as long as it is done with the right attitude in one's heart. India, as we have just seen, is facing multiple threats from without by hostile nations, armed with both conventional and atomic weapons. The Islamic bomb, assembled by Pakistan with Arab financing, is the first one of these. The other nuclear threat India is facing is coming from China. Nehru's policy of " Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai " was a disaster: China attacked India by surprise and took away 20.000 square kilometres of her territory. And today India is still making the same mistake of trusting the Chinese. It recognises the Chinese claim on Tibet, a wholly independent country which the Chinese have raped since 1950, killing 1,2 million of its peaceful, adorable people. But in doing so, it ignores that Tibet is the perfect buffer zone between herself and China. New Delhi's policy will backfire, because sooner or later India's Kashmir will be compared with Tibet, when there is no comparison at all, as Kashmir has been India's for 5000 years and the Indians have not killed one million Kashmiris. And finally, the Indian Government must be knowing that China has transferred one third of its nuclear arsenal to the Tibetan plateau and that most of the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile are pointed towards the North Indian cities. It is an official report from the CIA, which has been quoted numerous times by the American Senate. How can then the India Government think of freezing, or worse cancelling the Agni programme for instance, the only weapon which can answer in kind to China's own IRBM ? At a time when China is still claiming Arunachal Pradesh and India and China are fast becoming the two main competitors in Asia ? For this and many other reasons, India should keep its nuclear option opened, in spite of the increasing pressure from the West, particularly the United States. India needs again Kshatriyas to defend herself, not businessmen, or intellectuals who will sell down their country' security for a few more million dollars investments and a pat on the back from Uncle Sam. It is to be hoped that India will realise that surrendering to America's pressure would jeopardise her unity and open her for dismemberment. For her nuclear and missile programmes are not meant for aggression -once gain in her 7000 year history, India was never an aggressor- but as a deterrent to protect herself, to show her enemies that she means business and that she will retaliate in case of first attack. It is a sad reality of the world today, and India has got to take it in consideration. Let India be strong, powerful, nuclear even, but as dharma, because it is her duty to protect her children. |
To continue with Chapter 13.... |
|
|
Introduction Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 |