Stop the arms race
in South Asia!
Sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Achin Vanaik
For a long time only a handful of antinuclearists in India were arguing that the country should sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Their numbers may now increase substantially but the swelling can come from two different groups. The first group is not concerned, apart from lip service, with any serious striving for global disarmament. They support the tests and India going nuclear but want to limit the damage that has been done internationally which they recognise is grave. Although there is no unanimity about the imposition of sanctions on India (and Pakistan), not only the nuclear weapon States (NWSs) but the overwhelming majority of the non-nuclear weapon States (NNWSs) are insistent that both countries sign the CTBT and participate in the fissiles materials cut-off treaty (FMCT) negotiations. India cannot continue to buck this international consensus without the most serious repercussions for itself. Hence the various rationalisations of why India can now join the CTBT regime (because the context has changed) when it could not earlier.
Those in the second catchment area of potential support are differently motivated. These people want a permanent end to testing by India and are opposed to further weaponisation and deployment. But very large sections here (which includes most of the Indian Left) continue to believe, falsely, that the CTBT is discriminatory as well as being an American plot, etc. Unfortunately, they have so strongly staked their public reputations on this that it has become difficult for them to retract. But retract they must. If one is serious about getting a permanent end to testing by India (and Pakistan), then there is no substitute for the CTBT.
Do not for a moment think that this Government or any future non-Left Government will unilaterally declare a permanent end to such tests. A strong lobby is well aware that further tests are needed if India wants to build a significant-sized nuclear arsenal in the name of their understanding of what would constitute a "minimal deterrence capacity" against China.
Nor should there be any illusion that this Government will ever give a commitment of no future weaponisation. The most it will concede under pressure is no weaponisation for the moment - a no-cost policy pronouncement because it will anyway take India a year or two to technically 24 International Viewpoint #302 equip itself for final weaponisation/deployment of delivery vehicles. But the issue of the CTBT will not wait that long. It is going to be forced upon India by international pressure and the existence of an allparty consensus opposing the Treaty will play into the hands of the nuclear rightwing. There is a real chance that the Government can accede to the CTBT especially since such accession does not prevent future weaponisation. Nevertheless, a permanent end to testing world wide is an important gain. If India and Pakistan test in the future or keep this option open, then the whole CTBT norm can unravel. The Chinese have already indicated they may have to reconsider their commitment to end testing and the American right-wing led by the not unintluential Senator, Mr. Jesse Helms, is already opposing CTBT ratification and calling for the U.S. to resume explosive testing. Such a breakdown would spell disaster.
Nor can one trust a purely national regime of monitoring to verify Indian compliance in the unlikely event of a permanent renunciation of tests ever being declared. In short, there is no practicable and reliable substitute monitoring mechanism to the CTBT regime. Those who oppose the CTBT on so-called principled grounds had better rethink, either subordinating their earlier objection to a larger good or principle or, preferably, realising that their opposition was wrong to begin with. They might just reconsider whether the support (with varying degrees of enthusiasm and qualifications) by virtually the whole of the international anti-nuclear peace movement and groups, of virtually the whole of the international Left, and of virtually all the NNWSs does not indicate that it was India which got it wrong and not the rest of the world. They should also recognise that it was precisely the outcome of the discourse over the CTBT earlier that decisively shifted the centre of gravity on this issue dramatically to the right, paving the way for what eventually
happened. Similarly, another debate
(which can neither be avoided nor put off for a year or two over signing the Treaty if it is lost to the anti-CTBTers will again significantly shift the terms of Indian discourse on the nuclear issue to the right.
This will greatly weaken not only antinuclearists but even those pro-nuclearists who see themselves as advocating a more cautious, responsible and sober form of Indian nuclearism which sees the importance of a strong arms control orientation, regionally and internationally.
There were three main criticisms made of the CTBT in India. The CTBT had to be linked to a time-bound schedule for global disarmament otherwise it was pointless. The treaty was discriminatory. And in another related but distinct line of argument, the treaty was held to be fatally flawed because it allowed sub-critical testing and computer simulation. None of these criticisms holds water. Take the first one. A few of us repeatedly insisted to no avail that this linkage by India was simply an excuse to justify its objections to the treaty on grounds other than "national security considerations" although these were cited as well. Does anyone doubt now that this was in fact the case? India was close to testing in mid-1995 when the key issues in the draft treaty had yet to be seriously negotiated.
Time and again, this technique of argument has been used by cynical nuclear elites everywhere. One postulates one's commitment to a grand final goal which all can agree with but it is done in order to block a step in the process by which that ultimate goal can be reached. Because of the moral capital that India had built internationally in the past, many NNWSs gave some benefit of the doubt to Indian intentions. But the overwhelming majority of the NNWSs did not follow India rightly feeling that this CTBT was better than none and should not be sacrificed at the altar of a demand for a grand renunciatory commitment by the NWSs unattainable for a long time to come.
Moreover, this demand was a case of putting the cart before the horse. You first tave to get institutionalised a multilateral body empowered to negotiate complete global disarmament to which the NWSs will accede. Only after this does it become ensible to talk of a time-bound schedule. This is what, for example, an ad hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament in the Conerence on Disarmament (CD) (which is hat the NNWSs were angling for in the TBT) or a Nuclear Weapons Convention NWC) amount to. Getting the NWSs to gree to either of these mechanisms is ing to take years. To insist that a NWC, r example must from its very inception ve a time-bound schedule for global disament is to greatly weaken, not strengen, the chances of getting such a body titutionalised.
As for the CTBT being discriminatory is is just plain wrong. The NPT has difent treaty obligations for the NWSs and he NNWSs legally enshrined. The CTBT has no such discrimination having the same obligation for all member signatories. One can claim that behind this legal non-discrimination lies a ground situation of inequality and discrimination which the treaty does not adequately address. But this is a qualitatively different kind of criticism than the morally charged and deeply misleading accusation of the CTBT itself being discriminatory. At best, one can claim that the CTBT is seriously flawed because one set of signatories, the
NWSs, is not adequately restrained while the NNWSs or threshold nuclear states are. This line of criticism thus connects with the issue of sub-criticals and computer simulation. But even here the popular Indian claims were misleading. Despite the freedom to carry these out, the CTBT is a powerful restraint on all signatories.
Though the scientific evidence against exaggerating the value of sub-criticals, simulation and such facilities as the National Ignition Facility (U.S.) and Laser Megajoule (France) is overwhelming, one does not have to be a nuclear physicist to realise that the CTBT is a genuine and powerful restraint measure on all the NWSs. One only has to use one's common sense. The Republican party, numerous former top bureaucrats, the weapons laboratories, sections of the military, etc., would never have opposed the CTBT in the U.S. if this was not the case. Senate ratification is still uncertain. Nor is there any way that Russia and China would have gone along with the treaty if their scientific establishments believed the U.S. because of its technological lead, would not be significantly restrained by its provisions. Yet some Indian critics claimed both that the U.S. wanted the TBT because it alone could monopolise the benefits of its "loophole', and also, that the U.S. so badly wanted the treaty it was willing to forego its monopoly by eliminating its technoLogical lead through extension to the other NWSs! * © Achin Vanaik and The Hindu, Monday June 29 1998
Pakistan/India nuclear tests *
Pakistan
The Hard Choice
Abdul H. Nayyar
It is indeed a sad moment for peace lovers in Pakistan. Normally they would have advocated a unilateral renunciation of nuclear option by Pakistan. Now they have retreated to a position from where they are only calling for restraint. They are asking Pakistan to keep the nuclear ambiguity intact, the same ambiguity that they previously - and presumably still - regard as a destabilising factor in the region.
Many a threshold has been crossed in the past few days.
The Indian nuclear tests are an expected outcome of the general perceptions that have evolved in India over the last 50 years. Perceptions about themselves, and about others. About being traditionally in the forefront of anti-imperialist struggle, defying the hegemonic superpower domination. About being destined to an important role in the global affairs. About being at least as important as the five big
Pakistan occupies only a minor place in this perception. Perhaps a little more important than other neighbours, but certainly a dangerous irritant that is used by superpowers to tie India down. That this self-perception is deeply embedded in
India was clearly shown in a survey conducted among the Indian elite in 1995 by the John B Kroc Institute. It showed that the Indian nuclear programme was not perceived as Pakistan-specific.
A similar poll conducted in Pakistan in 1996 by the same institution gave a different picture. For a vast majority, threat to the country comes mainly from India. The nuclear programme is justified only to counter Indian hegemonic designs in the region. For the Pakistani elite the cost of this pursuit is unimportant.
There is thus a very peculiar situation at hand. India is treading the nuclear path with ambitions to match nuclear weapon states so as to carve out a global role for itself. Pakistan is being dragged along by its policy that is only reactive to India.
The repeated Indian nuclear tests have posed a serious dilemma for Pakistan. As viewed by its policy makers, Pakistan is damned if it conducts its own nuclear test. and damned also if it does not.
Not testing would be seen as a loss of face in the world, which has been made to believe for years that Pakistan has only stopped short of the last screw and is ready to meet the challenge in no time. The policy makers regard it as a matter of pride that Pakistan is labelled as a nuclear threshold state and is a part of the global nuclear debates.
There would also be loss of face inside the country, where a strong security hype has been created over the decades, with reassuring, and at times boastful, claims that there will be a tit-for-tat response to each and every Indian move. When the Ghauri
* Pakistan/India nuclear tests missile was unveiled, Pakistan's foreign minister lost his diplomatic veneer, boasting that the Ghauri gave Pakistan an edge over India. Pakistan has always struggled to achieve parity with India on defence matters, sometimes even deluding itself with having achieved it. What worries the policy makers is that all that was 'gained by Ghauri in this senseless race has simply evaporated with the Indian
Having tested its nuclear devices, Pakistan faces several consequences. For one, there will be sanctions which can have devastating consequences for its fragile economy. Secondly, it will have to bargain away the ambiguity that has been the cornerstone of its supposed nuclear
Thirdly, the ensuing nuclear arms race is definitely going to prove costlier than it has been so far. The veil of ambiguity had at least allowed an opportunity to put a hold on the nuclear race; the enemy" left guessing about what the country's level of capability was. With the veil gone, it will be a weapon versus a weapon. The parity that Pakistan may seek to achieve by exploding a nuclear weapon will still elude it. The technological leap that India has taken is most certainly far too big for Pakistan, now and in the foreseeable future. India has demonstrated two major advancements (if that is what these can be called) in the May 11 and 13 tests: first, constructing a thermonuclear weapon, and second showing that they can make
These two will have to be matched by
Pakistan if it aims at a credible deterrence.
The race will also involve having efficient
World Nuclear Tests
United States
Russia/USSR and reliable delivery systems. With India having already announced launching a missile defence system production, Pakistan is not likely to opt out of this next step The race will go on. More fission weapons, more hydrogen bombs, more tactical weapons, larger and longer ranged missiles, missile defence systems, and so
Imagine the burden of this on the economies. It is futile to doubt the technical capability of achieving the objective. It is now well-recognised that nuclear weapons and missiles can be developed by any nation that has a modest technical capability and a resolve to put resources into it.
The Pakistani test will heighten tension in the region. The covert wars will increase. The test will reinforce that false sense of security which has allowed Pakistan to support insurgencies across the border [in Indian-occupied Kashmir|/
An overt nuclearisation of South Asia with associated developments in delivery systems, etc., cannot be a "better deterrent' than the non-weaponised one as the protest lobby would like us to believe.
If anything, it will be much more unstable. The Ghauri missile took about ten minutes to travel 1100 kilometres. The Prithvi and Hatf take less than five minutes to reach their targets 300 kilometres away. What time does this leave for a rational response? The history of the USA-USSR cold war is replete with incidents of false alarms, and the world was spared from Armageddon by the longer flight time the ICBM's needed to cover the long distance between the two countries, the excellent command, control and intelligence systems and the permissive action links established in the command hierarchy that prevented pushing of buttons either accidentally or in panic. India and
Pakistan do not have the luxury of any of
Pakistan's security concern being solely tied to India, its "nuclear doctrine' is based on the awareness of the increasing disparity in the conventional detence capabilities. The nuclear weapons are to be used in a war with India when conventional defence system fails to withstand the Indian superiority.
The message too is very clear: "If in any future conflagration we find that our forces are losing ground, we shall not hesitate to use whatever nuclear arsenal we have. It may be small, but it surely will cause a damage that cannot be acceptable to you. We also know that you have a much larger stock of nuclear weapons, and that you can indeed inflict much worse damage onto us, but our level of desperation is such that is acceptable to us in comparison to a capitulation to your hege-
This 'doctrine' combined with the inevitability of the nuclear race, if Pakistan continues to follow its policy of being dragged behind India, makes the situation extremely unstable. A little mistake, a panic, and havoc could be unleashed upon the peoples of the two countries. Should this be allowed?
It is time that Pakistan for once makes a hard choice: that of a unilateral nuclear disarmament, rather than choosing to match the Indian response with a test of its own, or even keeping a non-weaponised nuclear option. For this it will have to come out of the binds of its security perceptions and to make a rational choice of putting all the resources it has got into the economic development and welfare of its people. That is the only way to make the country worth defending. * Dr. Abdul Hameed Nayyar teaches physics at the Quaidi-Azam University in the Pakistan capital, Islamabad. He is actively involved with nuclear disarmament issues and human rights initiatives.
For more information try the South Asians Against Nukes website:
www.mnet.fr/aiindex/NoNukes.html Women's Action Forum Nuclear madness
Women's Action Forum, Lahore, is deeply distressed by the explosion of nuclear devices in India and Pakistan.
While we condemn India for starting the nuclear race in South Asia, we are saddened that Pakistan has responded in kind and lost its moral high ground in the process. In addition, the imposition of Emergency rule and the suspension of fundamental rights in Pakistan following the explosions is extremely perturbing
WAF helieves that neither violence nor the tools of violence guarantee national security. It has been amply demonstrated by the example of the Soviet Union that the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal did not ensure security and that the only long term and enduring insurance of territorial integrity is the economic well-being of a
WAF has always strongly opposed nuclearisation, militarisation, and warmongering and upheld dialogue and other peaceful means of mediating conflict. It is unfortunate that people should be encouraged to rejoice in the acquisition of weapons of death and mass destruction, instead of being asked to soberly reflect on the horrifying implications of acquiring nuclear weapons. In a region where 40% of the population lives beneath the poverty line, it is tragic that such large amounts should be spent on nuclear weapons prog-
WAF holds the Western nuclear powers responsible for the current situation in South Asia, as they have consistently followed the dual policy of keeping their own arsenals intact while urging restraint on others ...]
We appeal to the leadership of India and Pakistan to put a stop to this madness.
There can be no justification, moral or otherwise, for an act that imperils the future of the human race. We demand:
Pakistan/India nuclear tests *
1. An end of the Emergency and the restoration of Fundamental Human
Rights in Pakistan.
2. An end to the rhetoric of violence and war by the leadership of both India
3. Immediate action against those elements who are using violence to stifle debate on issues that are critical to the existence and well being of the peoples of South Asia and the world.
4. An immediate dialogue between
India and Pakistan to resolve outstanding issues including Kashmir, in a peaceful and rational atmosphere.
5. India and Pakistan should immediately sign a No War Pact as well as the CTBT and NPT.
6. Finally, we demand that all nuclear powers should destroy their arsenals and put an end to the hypocrisy and double standards which are largely responsible for the threat of extinction faced by the human race today. June 03, 1998 WAF Working Committee India The smile that makes generations sick Surendra Gadekar
A nuclear test involves the release into the environment of large quantities of radioactive poisons. Poisons that shall linger on and on; long after the after glow fades; long after the applause and the mutual back-patting fades; long after all the scientists, engineers, and even the evergreen politicians fade; long after historical constructs such as Pakistan, China and India fade. This deliberate poisoning of our soil and that most precious of all things in a desert, water, shall continue to
Till now five other nations have conducted approximately 1,900 nuclear tests. Of these, 518 have been in the atmosphere, under water, or in space. Approximately 1,400 tests have been conducted underground in scores of places around
Obtaining complete and accurate data on health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons testing is difficult. In large part this is because countries that have tested nuclear weapons give the principal responsibility of assessing the health and environmental effects of the testing to the very agencies that make and test the weapons. These agencies have therefore found themselves with contradictory missions. ng On the one hand, the reality of widespread fallout requires that people be carefully informed about the nature of fallout and the dangers of radiation. It requires openness and free discussion. On the other he hand there is the overwhelming desire for secrecy and the perceived need to build up nuclear arsenals come what may. In this mind-set, it is no wonder that the health and security of one's own citizens is sacrificed at the alter of geo-political considerations. Henry Wassermann very aptly named his book describing US experience with the effects of ionising radiation as Killing Our Own.
Except for at very high doses, radiation damage is not immediately apparent. Considerable damage is done to health and the environment before the public becomes aware.
A 1-kiloton explosion (explosive force equal to 1,000 tons of conventional TNT explosives) will typically produce i billion curies of radioactive fission products one minute after detonation, falling to 10 million curies in 12 hours, as the short-lived radionuclides decay. Most bombs have four to five kilograms of plutonium of which one can safely assume that more than half is left behind. Strontium-90 and cesium-137, two other long lived radionuclides (half lives around 30 years each) are produced at the rate of 0.1 and 0.16 kilocuries per kiloton respectively.
Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances known. It has a half life of 24,000 years and will therefore remain in the environment of India's Pokhran test
Sometimes underground tests result in quick, massive releases into the atmosphere called ventings. Releases which take place slowly over a period of months or years are called seeps. The Des Moines test of 1962 vented 1lm. curies while the Bainberry test of 1970 vented 6.7m. curies into the atmosphere. Mercifully, India's Shakti tests in May havn't resulted in ventings. Seeps are another matter and would require careful monitoring of the site.
The long term dangers arising from wastes in the underground environment have not yet been carefully assessed anywhere in the world. However, there is evidence quoted by the Office of Technology Assessment of the US Congress which shows that soil and ground water at the Nevada Test Site has been contaminated. This is not surprising since radioactive testing results in the drastic fracture of rock structures.
Of one thing we can be sure. It it 1s found that India's tests resulted in radioactive contamination which is a threat to human health, the villagers living in the vicinity are unlikely to be told anything about the fact, or asked to take precautions that might reduce their risks. In our pursuit of geo-political might, some have to pay the price of development. Modern versions of the ancient custom of human sacrifice for the sake of power and glory can be played to thunderous applause from a nation thirsty for international recognition. India demos
In the Indian capital New Delhi, the PBVA (Movement Against Nuclear Weapons) organised a peaceful protest on
29 May at the Patel Chowk traffic circle. They held up placards reading "IndiaPakistan, stop this madness!" "Remember Hiroshima," "Our India and Pakistan will become Graveyards," "No water, no electricity, no jobs, no problem! We have the bomb!" and "Hungry people on both sides,
In a press statement released after the action, the group said: "We unequivocally condemn the Pakistani nuclear tests as we have unequivocally condemned the Indian nuclear tests at Pokhran. We do not care whether the bomb is Indian or Pakistani or Chinese. We demand a nuclear weapons-
"This sudden spiralling of tensions in the region has been caused by the deliberate whipping up of jingoism and the provocative statements by the minority BJP government... In the Prime Minister's statement of having tackled 'bhay (fear), bhrashtachaar (corruption) and bhookh (hunger)' we wish to point out that fear was not an issue until May 11 [when India carried out its five nuclear tests] and that for the present regime hunger seems to be the last priority.
"The earlier stand that the tests are meant to be a deterrent has proved to be false. We now fear that when the BJP says that its nuclear policy stands vindicated they will use the excuse of the Pakistani tests to induct and deploy nuclear warheads, This will only lead to the escalation of tensions and the beginning of a nuclear arms race that no one can afford.
"We appeal to all Indians concerned with the peace and stability of the south Asian region to press the Government of India that they will not weaponise, instead India must lead the world in global disarmament by choosing to unilaterally dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
"We extend our hand of friendship and solidarity across the border to those Pakistani sisters and brothers who, like us, are challenging the anti-people policies of both governments of Pakistan and India." CP|(M) and CP(M) Shortsightedness
In a joint Press Statement issued on 29 May, the Communist Party Of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India said that Pakistan's nuclear tests "are not a vindication of the policy adopted by the BJP-led government as the Prime Minister has claimed, but an inevitable confirmation of how wrong has been the reversal of India's long-standing nuclear policy. It has undone the progress in establishing good neighbourly relations with our neighbours and securing peace in the region.
The short-sighted step taken by the Vajpayee government and the reaction of the Pakistani government is leading to the step by step escalation in the nuclear arms race in the subcontinent and its attendant tensions.
"Such a course is harmful to the peoples of both countries and will only
27
* Pakistan serve to divert attention and resources from the pressing and massive problems of poverty and underdevelopment in both India and Pakistan. While the BJP government has with its precarious majority undermined the sound foreign and nuclear policies being pursued, the Pakistani government, which faces more serious problems, will find it convenient to distract the people's attention. Any move to whip up tensions will only hamper and retard the prospects of economic and social progress of both countries.
*The Vajpayee government should not seek to rouse national chauvinism on a sensitive issue like nuclear weapons. It should immediately open a dialogue with the Pakistani government to defuse
According to the CPI(M) and the CPI, a national consensus can be developed only on the basis of five principles:
• India should not go for weaponisation and the Vajpayee government must not make or deploy nuclear weapons.
• The Indian government should immediately declare no first-use of nuclear
• The government should not proceed towards signing the CTBT
• India should step up efforts for universal nuclear disarmament
• the way forward in the current crisis should be discussed with all national political parties so that a common approach is formulated. Pakistan demos
Anti-India protesters hurled chairs and punches, breaking up a June 2nd news conference called by the Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy on 2 June to protest against nuclear tests by both India and Pakistan. "Anybody who is friend of India is a traitor," chanted the protesters.
PIPFPD members denied the charge, and said they only wanted peace and opposed the nuclear arms race between the rival neighbours in South Asia. "We believe that no justification exists on earth 28 International Viewpoint #302 for either the initial tests by India or the retaliatory tests by Pakistan..." said a statement by the group, which has local groups of human rights and peace activists in both India and Pakistan.
It urged both countries to "abandon the destructive policy of producing nuclear sign a peace treaty as well as the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, settle their dispute on the Himalayan region of Kashmir, and cut military spending.
The protesters, carrying flags and banners of the right-wing Jamaat-i-Islami party and Shabab-1-Milli group, entered a hall at an Islamabad hotel where the news conference was in progress and threw chairs at the PIPFPD members, who were already facing aggressive questioning from local reporters. The news conference was abandoned because of the fracas. *Burn the Indian chambers (institutions), burn them," chanted the protesters.
The Lahore-based Women's Action Forum was one of the groups which condemned the attack, saying "we fully support the statement of the Forum and oppose this barbaric attempt to silence the voices of reason and sanity emanating from both sides of the border.
In a general climate of jingoistic support for nuclear tests, a joint statement issued by the national unions of Pakistani and Indian journalists urged the governments of the two countries to compete with each other in eradicating poverty and illiteracy rather than engage in an arms race. "We the working journalists of India and Pakistan appeal to both our governments not to build up tension in the subcontinent by participating in senseless said the statement by Pakistan's Abdul Hameed Chhapra and India's K. Sreenivas Reddy.
In a related development, a group of law students held an anti-nuclear march in the Punjab provincial capital Lahore, where two other marches were held to welcome the Pakistani nuclear tests. ICS (4th International) Statement The mainstream left's nationalist hypocrisy
Following the Vajpayee government's testing of nuclear weapons in Pokhran, anti-nuclear groups and other activists have begun launching sporadic movements. The major left parties took three days to come out with a statement, in which they hailed Indian scientists, distancing that achievement from the BJP policy. This hypocrisy flows from their strident nationalist opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), barely disguised as demands for northsouth eqality, etc.
In the years when the USSR existed, these parties, never opposed Soviet nuclear weapons. So it is not surprising that they are not against nuclear weapons as such, but only against the timing, the stridency of the BJP's tone, and so on.
However, members of the main left parties did take part in the various demonstrations organised by other left groups and peace activists.
In Calcutta, home to a considerable anti-nuclear movement in the early and mid-1980s (in which members of the Indian Section of the Fourth international played an important role), a number of protest meetings and demonstrations were organised. These included a demonstration on the 16th May by a number of small groups, a public meeting on 21st May by the Indo-Pak Forum, a demonstration and open-air meeting by the Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights on 22nd May, and a Citizen's convention on the same day.
Members of the Inquilabi Communist Sangathan, Indian Section of the Fourth international. took part in all the programmes and distributed leaflets. At the Citizens' Convention, speakers included noted scientist Prof. Sujoy Basu, noted playwright Badal Sarkar, Santosh Rana (PCC CPIML leader), Santi Roy (trade unionist, associated with the Indian Chapter of Asia Pacific Workers' Solidarity Links), and Kunal Chattopadhyay of the ICS. Chattopadhyay warned that "fascist ultranationalism cannot be countered by trying to prove ourselves to be better nationalists, but through internationalism." He also stressed the importance of uniting the various efforts to build an anti-bomb, anti-nuclear movement.
ICS members active in the women's movement are working with the 34-organisation network Maitree (Friendship) in an attempt to unite the various initiatives into a major, united series of initiatives on
The day after Pakistan's nuclear tests, members of the National Alliance of Peoples' Movements, the Peoples' Science Coordination Committee, the Inquilabi Communist Sangathan, the Anti nuclear Forum, and Maitree were among those protested behind the banner, "Indian and Pakistani Rulers : Twin Warmongers"
In Gujarat, the Inquilabi Communist Sangathan, the Narmada Bacha Andolan, the Lokshahi Hakka Sangathana, the women's organisation Sahiyar were already coming together to build a political alternative. As a result, they have protested together against the tests. The ICS statement has been widely publicised in the Gujarati and local English language press, as other parties are all supporting the tests, seeking only to minimise any political gains the BJP might try to extract from the tests. The Inquilabi Communist Sangathan (ICS), Indian section of the Fourth International, is deeply involved in anti-nuclear work in Gujerat and West Bengal. They plan to bring out a booklet on nuclear power and the recent situation, and are producing posters and leaflets to mobilise for the 6th August protests. Donations to help their work can be sent to International Viewpoint via your local distributor or directly to our Paris office.