CB BureauWell, they all are celebrating. The Prime
Minister, the President, the media, the administrators, the defence forces and the
department of science and technology… all of them are clinking crystal
glasses and have their chests bulging out in pride. I don’t know what you call these
people who make long lethal rockets (‘scientists’ would mean that they are in
the same category as the Einsteins and the Edisons ) – when I saw their grinning
faces on TV, they reminded me of old colleague Dubey’s awesome expression when
he had got positive results from penis-enlargement
pills.
I could very well understand – and to an
extent relate to – Dubey’s joy in obtaining a stronger embodiment of so-called manhood,
but precisely what is it that the country’s ‘very important people’ and ‘not-the-least-visibly-important
people’ are so proud of? Amid my confusion, what worries me more are the
missiles that my two-year-old Georgie will fire at me when she grows up. I am anxious
as I will have to face questions to which my metrosexual and logical mind has
very annoying answers, and on the other hand, my ruthless, rowdy, base, Genghis
Khan-influenced and a false Punjabi ego-massaged mind has answers that I will
never want to share with an already independent and brilliant (and as-yet
baggage-free) Georgie.
What if she comes and asks, “dada, why are these
people so happy about this long rocket? Shouldn’t we tell these old fellows that
such fireworks are not good for the environment?â€
What am I going to tell her? Should I tell
her that these men are rejoicing the fact that this missile gives these men the
power to kill several thousand people living several thousand kilometres away?
But little Georgie does not even know what ‘kill’ is,
and we haven’t yet introduced her to a gun – there isn’t one in her collection
of toys, and the books that featured one (G for Gun) were discarded. More so,
the concept of even shouting at home is unpleasant for her, so how do I start
this conversation about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and their potential to
kill? More difficult will be to explain how these can be somebody’s , and in
Agni’s case, almost the country’s, pride possessions.
I might start like this: “Listen
sweetheart, now that we have this big rocket, we will have more bargaining
power and will get cheaper fuel from other countries, and we will be able to
steal gold at missile point to become rich, and even the World Bank will loan
us more money to eradicate poverty and eliminate hunger and build health
centres and schools. We have become strong, you know…â€
Goddamn, no. I think I have got it all
wrong.
I’ll probably get away by giving her a
lesson on national security. But what if she asks me the fundamental question:
Has nuclear weapons increased or decreased our security as a nation? Thanks to
her mum, Georgie does not get to hear about the price of things – in her most
basic way, she can perhaps only appreciate their value. Maybe I should be
thankful, then, that this curious-about-everything baby will not ask me the
cost of this gigantic rocket.
Appreciating the life-taking capabilities
of this terrifying missile, the analysis of an analyst, published in Hindustan Times, proposes that it is a
Hobson’s choice for India to develop such missiles. I can understand why a
‘gentleman’ who has spent all his life around killing machines, subsidized
wines, and uniformly dressed yes-sir boys believes that a nation’s strength
lies only in itsmilitary might. But why
should this be the case with the leaders who come from the grassroots and have
seen hungry bodies with zero defence mechanisms? These bodies that do not care
how far you can reach to kill, but are concerned about your ability to save the
ones dying on your own land…
We know about thousands in ‘official’
figures who are yet to get access to clean drinking water, handful of rice, and
firewood. I am sure anybody who has gone to school and have passed sixth
standard would know that billions of rupees are spent to make a missile and billions
more are exhausted for its upkeep. These same billions can easily feed a few hungry
billions for many years. Moreover, the fuel required for a single flight of the
missile can easily light up a few hundred homes for weeks.
Well, considering that the white (I once
believed that white represented peace, purity, etc.) kurta-clad brigade knows
how to spend billions of rupees on development, I better not give them ideas.
And since I do not have any capacity to win votes, nor do I possess Mark
Antony’s elocution quality that could sway the citizenry, I’d rather only jot
down reasons that make me believe that we will be better off without nuclear
arms. The world has seen what a mere commercial airliner can do after banging into
a commercial building (they did not need a missile, by the way), and we
certainly do not want to see a disaster thousand times deadlier, bloodier, and
scarier than that.
I believe:
a) The countries that possess
nuclear weapons simply do not have the right intentions and only present a
superficial side of themselves to the world. I believe that if I intend to kill,
even without killing, I commit a murder in my mind and heart.
b) The very existence of nuclear
weapons keeps alive the possibility of nuclear war. It does not matter whose
finger is on the button – Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, or
Manmohan Singh – the possibility and probability may vary, but the threat that
less than a dozen have the capacity to annihilate not just the human species,
but all species on earth, is all too intimidating.
c) No, we have not extracted any
durable peace from the terror of nuclear weapons. The idea that there will be
no wars if nuclear weapons exist is a hoax. The countries with nuclear weapons
have been involved in more wars than non-nuclear weapon states, and I do not
need to prove this with statistics.
d) Nuclear weapons cannot be a
priority of a country that is almost always in debts. Nuclear armament programmes
are extraordinarily costly, and the costs continue into the indefinite future. Imagine
the costs of research, development, testing, deployment, maintenance, and
associated intelligence activities. Every rupee invested in weapon systems is a
rupee less invested in health, education, and social welfare and development.