PDA

View Full Version : Did pakistan ever even develop nuclear weapons?



maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 07:14
Lets go back to history to 1998 or so when India exploded nukes. Within one month pakistan supposedly exploded a couple too but are we so sure about that? How do we know it was not a failure and then in return for some backroom deals with the US/UK/Israel axis pakistan was allowed to pretend it was nuclear armed when actually all it really had was the capability to create dirty bombs. I always suspected this and then I saw this video on youtube made by a bitter Indian(what a surprise there), its funny though and shows the mentality of all the pakphobic brainwashed hindus in India:

YouTube - Pakistan's Nuclear Merchant -Presented by ChannelPhor Inc. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wjNKqIffq4)

And here is a video of the actual nuclear test in chagai, I dunno if this tells anything but you see the mountains supposedly rumble...

YouTube - Pakistan nuclear test - パ*スタン 実験 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfRw5u-WwSU)


I don't see a mushroom cloud though. Shouldn't a shroom cloud come up or were the nukes too deep for that? Here is a vid of the Indian nuke test:

YouTube - Indian nuke - インド 実験 -1998- (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eTRPwlgCIk)


No shroom clould there either so thats not too suspicious. On the other hand I do recall the jiggles on the richter scales emanating from chagai hills were not quite that impressive.

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 08:32
Its an underground test. Pakistani Bombs were of very low yield. Pakistani bombs are definitly made in China, One reason. Khan and all were doing Uranium based nuclear bomb while those exploded is Plutoniom based.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 09:59
1) How do we know that the bombs exploded were plutonium based only and not Uranium as well as Plutonium based? Who analyzed the fallout and is the result public? Acknowledged by whom?

2) How do we know that the bombs were actually made in china, what if the blueprints were from China but the bombs were manufactured in Pakistan

3) How do we know that the bombs were low yield thermonuclear bombs rather than conventional explosives? I remember reading somewhere that the bombs were actually low yield enough to be non nuclear.

Vinod2070
19 Dec 07,, 10:05
its funny though and shows the mentality of all the pakphobic brainwashed hindus in India:

It definitely shows your mentality. ;)

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:15
It definitely shows your mentality. ;)


Please explain, how does me merely commenting on the mentality of a pakiphobe who made a video with bitter, offensive comments directed at ***** "definately" show my mentality?

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 10:18
Please explain, how does me merely commenting on the mentality of a pakiphobe who made a video with bitter, offensive comments directed at ***** "definately" show my mentality?

I rather not comment on this one, What the world generally views on Pakistan's contribution to world peace is quite well known.

Ray
19 Dec 07,, 10:20
Maqsad,

If you look at your school books you would realise who is brainwashed.

You are after all a product of this:




South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.sacw.net) | February 6, 2005

Rewriting the History of Pakistan

by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar

[Source: Islam, Politics and the State: The Pakistan Experience, Asghar Khan (ed.) Zed Books, London, 1985, pp. 164-177.]

From indoctrination's foul rope
Suspend all reason, all hope
Until with swollen tongue
Morality herself is hung.

Introduction
Education in Pakistan, from schools to universities, is being fundamentally redefined. This development is expected to have profound implications for the future of the country's society and politics. Most changes are traceable to factors related to the stability of the present government, but there are also others which cannot be analysed as a mere response to immediate threats. A new concept of education now prevails, the full impact of which will probably be felt by the turn of the century, when the present generation of school children attains maturity.

Having pledged to divorce education from liberal and secular ideals, Pakistani rulers view education as an important means of creating an Islamised society and as an instrument for forging a new national identity based on the 'Ideology of Pakistan'. Important steps have already been taken in this direction: enforcement of chadar in educational institutions; organisation of congregational zuhr (afternoon) prayers during school hours; compulsory teaching of Arabic as a second language from sixth class onwards; introduction of nazara Qur'an (reading of Qur'an) as a matriculation requirement; alteration of the definition of literacy to include religious knowledge; elevation of maktab schools to the status of regular schools and the recognition of maktab certificates as being equivalent to master's degrees; creation of an Islamic university in Islamabad; introduction of religious knowledge as a criterion for selecting teachers of all categories and all levels; and the revision of conventional subjects to emphasise Islamic values.

It is not the intent of this chapter to analyse in its totality the restructuring of education under the present martial law regime. We focus, instead, on a relatively narrow area - the revised history of Pakistan as currently taught to college students at the intermediate and degree levels. To this end, all officially prescribed Pakistan studies textbooks have, been examined, together with books recommended at different institutions. In addition, material has also been included from a number of other books dealing with the history of Pakistan which were written after 1977 and which have discernible official approval. We have discovered that, apart from relatively minor variations in emphasis and style, all present-day textbooks are essentially identical in content. Thus this chapter accurately represents the currently taught version of Pakistani history.

The task of rewriting history books started in earnest in 1981, when General Zia ul Haq declared compulsory the teaching of Pakistan studies to all degree students, including those at engineering and medical colleges. Shortly thereafter, the University Grants Commission issued a directive to prospective textbook authors specifying that the objective of the new course is to 'induce pride for the nation's past, enthusiasm for the present, and unshakeable faith in the stability and longevity of Pakistan' [1]. To eliminate possible ambiguities of approach, authors were given the following directives:

To demonstrate that the basis of Pakistan is not to be founded in racial, linguistic, or geographical factors, but, rather, in the shared experience of a common religion. To get students to know and appreciate the Ideology of Pakistan, and to popularize it with slogans. To guide students towards the ultimate goal of Pakistan - the creation of a completely Islamised State. [2]

In fulfillment of this directive, modern texts of Pakistani history are centred around the following themes:

1. The 'Ideology of Pakistan', both as a historical force which motivated the movement for Pakistan as well as its raison d'etre
2. The depiction of Jinnah as a man of orthodox religious views who sought the creation of a theocratic state
3. A move to establish the ulama as genuine heroes of the Pakistan Movement
4. An emphasis on ritualistic Islam, together with a rejection of liberal interpretations of the religion and generation of communal antagonism

In the remainder of this chapter, each of the above has been examined in turn.

Genesis of the 'Ideology of Pakistan'
The 'Ideology of Pakistan' occupies a position of central importance in all post-1977 Pakistani history textbooks. This ubiquitous phrase permeates all discussion, serves as the reference point for all debate, and makes its appearance at the very outset in all textbooks: 'As citizens of an, ideological state it is necessary to first know the basis upon which Pakistan was founded, the ideology of Pakistan.' [3] A virtually identical beginning is found in another book: 'Pakistan is an ideological state the Ideology of Pakistan was the inspiration and the basis of the Movement for Pakistan.' [4] General Zia ul Haq considers the 'Ideology of Pakistan' to be of crucial importance. In one of his speeches he stressed that 'the armed forces bear the sacred responsibility for safeguarding Pakistan's ideological frontiers'. [5]

The 'Ideology of Pakistan' is defined in a number of ways. For example, one source states that 'the Ideology of Pakistan is Islam'.[6] In another textbook, the 'Ideology of Pakistan' is more explicitly defined as:

. . . that guiding principle which has been accepted by the Muslims of the majority regions of the South Asian subcontinent and which allows them to lead their lives individually and collectively, according to the principles of Islam. [7]

The above definitions do not limit the 'Ideology of Pakistan' to the boundaries of Pakistan. All Muslim majority areas of the subcontinent, including Bangladesh, are covered. Moreover, the manner in which Muslims ought to lead their collective lives in the modern world is assumed to be well defined and beyond controversy. The underlying belief is that there exists a unique definition of an Islamic state.

In stark contrast to modern textbooks, no textbook written prior to 1977 contains mention of the 'Ideology of Pakistan'. Indeed, this phrase was not a part of the political parlance then. Although its precise genealogy is hard to ascertain, ex-Chief Justice Mohammad Munir claims that it has relatively recent origins. In his monograph From Jinnah to Zia he writes:

The Quaid-i-Azam never used the words 'Ideology of Pakistan' For fifteen years after the establishment of Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan was not known to anybody until in 1962 a solitary member of the Jamaat-i--Islami used these words for the first time when the Political Parties Bill was being discussed. On this, Chaudhry Fazal Elahi, who has recently retired as President of Pakistan, rose from his seat and objected that the 'Ideology of Pakistan' shall have to be defined. The member who had proposed the original amendment replied that the 'Ideology of Pakistan was Islam', but nobody asked him the further question 'What is Islam?' The amendment to the bill was therefore passed. [8]

While this event may or may not be the first significant use of the term 'Ideology of Pakistan', it does hint at the involvement of the politico--religious party, the Jamaat-i--Islami, in the propagation - and perhaps creation - of the phrase in question. Therefore, with the aim of arriving at a better understanding of this important phrase, we turn to a brief discussion of the Jamaat and its political programme.

Founded by the late Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, the Jamaat-i--Islami is a fundamentalist party which categorically asserts the superiority of the Islamic Shariah over all other principles and forms of political and social organisation. Much of the Jamaat's appeal derives from rhetorical denunciation of Western civilisation and Western democracy. It has also evolved a version of an Islamic state - the same view currently being popularised by modern textbooks in Pakistan.

The Jamaat's view of an Islamic state is that of an Islamic theocratic state - a state governed according to divinely revealed principles wherein the head of state, elected or otherwise, interprets such principles and translates them into practical matters of the state. Although Maudoodi, in his Islamic Law and Constitution, states that 'Islam vests all the Muslim citizens of an Islamic state with popular vice-gerency', he is quick to point out that all vice-gerents need not be of equal consequence. He demands that constitution makers:

evolve such a system of elections as would ensure the appointment of only those who are trustworthy and pious They should also devise effective measures to defeat the designs and machinations of those who scramble for posts of trust and are consequently hated and cursed by the people in spite of their so-called 'victories' in the elections. [9]

In this 'state without borders' any Muslim anywhere can be a citizen. It will be the best governed not only because its leaders are pious but also because only those will vote who are themselves pious.

With characteristic sternness, the Manifesto of the Jamaat-i--Islami (formulated in January 1951, reapproved by its Majlis-i-Shoora in December 1969) requires all political activity in Pakistan to obey the following code of ethics (note occurrence of 'Ideology of Pakistan' below):

Nobody should indulge in anything repugnant to the Ideology of Pakistan [emphasis added] Any effort directed towards turning this country into a secular state or implanting herein any foreign ideology amounts to an attack on the very existence of Pakistan.

Notwithstanding occasional sparring, there exists a confluence of basic interests and perceptions of the Jamaat and Pakistani rulers. It is highly significant that, with no essential change in meaning, the phrase 'Ideology of Pakistan' has been elevated from the relative obscurity of the Manifesto of the Jamaat-i--Islami into legally unchallengeable national dogma.

Religious Ideology and the Movement for Pakistan
Independent of precisely when and where the phrase 'Ideology of Pakistan' was first used, it is incontrovertibly true that its common use, both by national leaders and in textbooks, is a post-1977 development. In contrast, the 'Two-Nation Theory' - the basis of Pakistan - has genuine historical roots almost a century old. It was Mohammad Ali Jinnah who, for the first time, proclaimed that India was inhabited by two distinct nations - Hindus and Muslims - who could not live together in one state. In his presidential address to the Muslim League session at Lahore in 1940, he argued that 'Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs, literatures'.[10] Jinnah expounded his views with such eloquence and force that most Muslims, and even some Hindus, came to believe in them. The Muslim League demand for Pakistan was rooted in this theory, and India was eventually partitioned on the premise that Muslims constitute a distinct entity. Modern textbooks state that this Two-Nation Theory was the predecessor of the 'Ideology of Pakistan':

This righteous demand (for a separate homeland) was given the temporary name of 'Two-Nation Theory'. Now that right has been achieved, the same theory in this land is called the Ideology of Pakistan. [11]

In post-1977 Pakistan, the 'Ideology of Pakistan' is invariably equated to the 'Two-Nation Theory'. This raises the following questions: prior to 1947, what was the new state envisaged to be? In what sense, and to what extent, was the demand for a theocratic Islamic state the driving force behind the movement for Pakistan? We now turn to a consideration of these questions.

From all historical accounts it appears that in the heat of the struggle for Pakistan the structure of the new state - theocratic, democratic, or whatever - received no serious thought. Although they made their case on the assumption of a distinct Islamic identity, the Muslim League leadership was generally liberal in religious matters, and there had been no sudden revival of faith among them. For Jinnah the matter was particularly clear: he wanted a homeland for the Muslims, not an Islamic state. But there was a definite conflict between this secular constitutional way of thinking and that of the more religious young Muslim Leaguers, who had responded wholeheartedly to the League's call. There was, in fact, a long difference of opinion between Jinnah and the Raja of Mahmudabad, the youngest member of the League's working committee.

Because it throws into sharp focus the issues of the times, it is extremely instructive to study the Raja's memoirs, particularly with reference to the difference in opinion between Jinnah and himself on the nature of the future state:

I was one of the founder members of the Islamic Jamaat. We advocated that Pakistan should be an Islamic state. I must confess that I was very enthusiastic about it and in my speeches I constantly propagated my ideas. My advocacy of an Islamic state brought me into conflict with Jinnah. He thoroughly disapproved of my ideas and dissuaded me from expressing them publicly from the League platform lest the people might be led to believe that Jinnah shared my view and that he was asking me to convey such ideas to the public. As I was convinced that I was right and did not want to compromise Jinnah's position, I decided to cut myself away and for nearly two years kept my distance from him, apart from seeing him during working committee meetings and other formal occasions. It was not easy to take this decision as my associations with Jinnah had been very close in the past. Now that I look back I realize how wrong I had been. [12]

According to the Raja - and this is also a view shared by many scholars - three principal factors, in descending order of priority, transformed the Muslim League from the position of a feeble political minority in 1937 into a great mass movement less than a decade later:

One was the Congress attitude of indifference and, at times, hostility. Another was the leadership which, under Jinnah, broke new ground and fashioned new political strategy. Still another was the part played by religious appeal in the heightening of this consciousness. The leadership at the top was generally secular-minded and trained in modern political methods, but on the lower levels and especially among the field workers propaganda on religious lines was the general practice. [13]

To understand correctly Jinnah's concept of Pakistan, it is necessary to examine his position in greater detail.

Jinnah's Mind: Secular or Communal?
It is frequently said that without Jinnah there would have been no Pakistan, and Jinnah is himself known to have remarked that it was he, with the help of his secretary and typewriter, who won Pakistan for the Muslims.[14] Irrespective of the extent to which this is true, it is certainly the case that Jinnah is revered in Pakistan to an extent which no other political personality approaches even remotely. His speeches and writings, therefore, often serve as a reference point for debates on the nature of the Pakistani state and its future.

Modern textbooks invariably portray Jinnah as the architect of an Islamic ideological state:

The All-India Muslim League, and even the Quaid-i-Azam himself, said in the clearest possible terms that Pakistan would be an ideological state, the basis of whose laws would be the Quran and Sunnah, and whose ultimate destiny would be to provide a society in which Muslims could individually and collectively live according to the laws of Islam. [15]

Paradoxically, Jinnah began his political career as an exponent of Hindu-Muslim unity and as the leader of the liberal left wing of the Congress. His efforts culminated in the Lucknow Pact of 1916 between the Congress and the League. But when he again led the League almost twenty years later, the call was no longer for unity but for Hindu-Muslim separation. Khalid bin Sayeed, one of his more respected biographers, gives convincing evidence that in the period 1929-1935 the Congress' intransigence was a major factor that changed him from an 'idealist' into a 'realist' who saw no future for Muslims in a united India. [16]

In his personal life, Jinnah was liberal and Westernised. Overcoming the taboos of cross-communal relations, he married a Parsi lady in the face of her parents' opposition - a marriage destined to end in tragic separation and the premature death of his wife. Jinnah maintained his inner secularism even in the seething cauldron of communal hatred following Partition, as is evident from the fact that he appointed Joginder Nath Mandal, a Hindu, to serve in Pakistan's first cabinet. His famous 11 August 1947 speech before the nation is the clearest possible exposition of a secular state in which religion and state are separate from each other:

We are starting with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. . . Now I think that we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in due course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense as citizens of the state. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the State.[17]

In an interview to Doon Campbell, Reuter's correspondent in New Delhi in 1946, Jinnah made it perfectly clear that it was Western-style democracy that he wanted for Pakistan:

The new state would be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of their religion, caste or creed. [18]

Note the highly significant phrase 'sovereignty resting in the people'. In contrast, in Maulana Maudoodi's Islamic state, 'sovereignty rests with Allah'. Thus, Jinnah rejects the basis for a theocratic state. This is stated even more explicitly in his 1946 speech before the Muslim League convention in Delhi: 'What are we fighting for? What are we aiming at? It is not theocracy, nor a theocratic state.' [19] The historian K.K. Aziz has remarked that 'on the record of their writings and speeches, Jinnah comes out to be far more liberal and secular than Gandhi'. [20]

All of Jinnah's speeches were not so unequivocal about the nature of the future state. In the 1945 elections, the Muslim League was aided by a number of influential ulama. It is in this period that we find in Jinnah's speeches the greatest number of references to Islam and society. For example, in November 1945 he said that 'Muslims are demanding Pakistan so that they may live according to their code of life and traditions, and so that they may govern themselves according to the rules of Islam'. [21] How does one interpret this speech of Jinnah's, together with others of essentially similar nature, with the outright secular declarations quoted earlier? At least two interesting possibilities suggest themselves.

Jinnah may have made a compromise with the ulama in the interest of achieving unity on the primary goal - the attainment of a homeland for the Muslims. On the other hand, it is possible that he saw Islam in such liberal terms that he saw no essential conflict between it and his desire for a modern, democratic state along Western lines. Here one might add that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a venerated religious authority whose understanding of the Quran was no less deep than that of his contem-porary, Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, nevertheless interpreted the political message of Islam in a totally different way from the latter. It is evident that Jinnah also did not accept the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and the Islamic state.

The Role of the Religious Parties
All history bears evidence that religion has been a powerful nexus between individuals and groups, a potent instrument which has often welded a heterogeneous group into a distinct nationality. Through appeal to supernatural authority, religion promotes national unity as a divine command. When coupled with appropriate social and economic forces, it can forge a powerful and irresistible nationalism. Contemporary history is replete with examples: the Greek church as a source for Greek nationalism, the Catholic church as a factor in Irish separatism, Judaism and the state of Israel, Islam and Pakistan.

Since the movement for Pakistan was rooted in the social, cultural, and religious distinctions between Muslims and Hindus, one might logically expect that Muslim religious parties would have played a major, if not a leading, role in mobilising the Muslim masses. Paradoxically, aside from exceptions of no great importance, these parties had bitterly opposed Jinnah and the demand for Pakistan. Indeed, the exponents of Muslim nationalism were forced to battle on three formidable fronts. First, they had to persuade the British of their separate identity. Second, it was necessary to convince Congress of their determination to live as two separate nations. And third, the efforts of the ulama, who opposed Pakistan on grounds that nationalism was antithetical to Islam, had to be nullified.

The pre-Partition position of the politico-religious parties on the Pakistan question contrasts oddly with their present enthusiasm for religious nationalism. Maulana Maudoodi and the Jamaat-i-Islami had rejected nationalism because it 'led to selfishness, prejudice, and pride'. Till 1947 Maudoodi maintained that he would not fight for Pakistan, that he did not believe in Pakistan, and that the demand for it was un-Islamic. Some ten years before Partition he had maintained that 'Muslim nationalism is as contradictory a term as "chaste prostitute" '. [22] Jamaat literature would sometimes use the derogatory word Na-Pakistan for the proposed state. There were frequent indictments of Jinnah as lacking 'an Islamic mentality or Islamic habits of thoughts'. [23]

The Jamaat-i-Islami was not alone in its opposition to Pakistan. The Majlis-i-Ahrar, another politico-religious party, took a similar position. However, unlike the Jamaat, it was aligned with the Congress. Ahrar leaders termed Jinnah the Kafir-i-Azam (the great infidel) as a rebuttal to the title Quaid-i-Azam (the great leader) conferred upon him by the Muslim League. Allama Mashriqi's Khaksar party went a step further and once sought to assassinate Jinnah, albeit unsuccessfully. Signifi-cantly, Jamaat-i-Islami, Jamiat-ul-ulama-i-Hind, Majlis-i-Ahrar, and Khaksar were absent at Jinnah's funeral. A rather curious situation arose after Pakistan became a reality in 1947 since most political-religious parties were confronted with the dilemma of being in a country whose creation they had opposed. Political expediency caused many leaders to abruptly volte-face. For example, Mian Tufail Mohammad, now amir of the Jamaat-i-Islami, who had once denounced as 'sinners' all those who supported or joined Jinnah's government, stated on television recently that, in fact, there had existed an understanding between Jinnah and the Jamaat that both would work separately towards the same goal. It has also become usual for many modern textbooks to refer to Maudoodi as one of the intellectual founders of the Pakistan Movement. This startling fact suggests that the influence of the Jamaat-i-Islami on national education may be deeper than is normally assumed.

Those politico-religious parties which had resisted the creation of Pakistan may well have made good the political damage. Their allegiance to an Islamic state now entitles them to rewards which go beyond mere forgiveness: 'the services rendered by the ulama and mashaikh to the cause of the Pakistan Movement are worthy of writing in golden letters'. [24] One textbook devotes an entire chapter to their role, claiming that 'when Allama Iqbal and the Quaid-i-Azam presented their programme for an Islamic state, it met with the enthusiastic support of the ulama and mashaikh'. [25]

1947 -77: The Gulf of Silence
Nations which can rationally analyse their past, and particularly their defeats and periods of collective suffering, are far more likely to survive and prosper than those in which absence of free expression forbids truthful self-examination. Japan and Germany after World War II, Argentina after the Falklands War - historical examples abound in which positive shifts in national policy, domestic and foreign, occurred as a result of decisive defeat. Indeed, there were expectations of a critical assessment of the role of elites and readjustment of regional policies within Pakistan following the 1971 civil war and the subsequent Indian invasion. In this war, tens of thousands died, millions were displaced, and the country was rent asunder. Thirteen years later, this optimism has proven to be unfounded.

From the year 1947, the establishment of Pakistan, through the year 1977, the start of the Nizam-i-Mustafa Movement, all recent Pakistan studies texts maintain total, or almost total, silence on political events of this period. The most detailed account of history until 1968 to be found in any of these books is reproduced in full here: 'In October 1958, General Ayub Khan imposed martial law and thus saved the country from chaos'. [26] Of the few books which mention the Bangladesh episode, one has the following to say:

As a result of the 1970 elections, the political differences between East and West Pakistan grew and led to their separation. The cause of Islamic unity received a setback, but one should not interpret this as a rejection of Islamic Ideology by the people. Indeed, unless Islam is presented as a whole, and not as just worship and prayers, it remains incomplete. The forces of atheism and worldliness, in this case, can influence the minds of people through modern education and public media. [27]

This strict economy of words is in striking contrast to the extensive coverage given to Islamisation after 1977. Nevertheless, this small paragraph invites more than just cursory reading.

There is little doubt that the painful separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan strikes at the very roots of Pan-Islamism - the belief that Muslims all over the world belong to one nation and that differences among them are insignificant. Modern textbooks, therefore, are reluc-tant to discuss the issue in any detail. It should also be observed that the above quoted paragraph attributes the separation of East and West squarely to the fact that elections were held in Pakistan. This serves to create the fear that if elections and democracy broke up Pakistan in 1971, then Pakistan may again be mortally endangered if elections and democracy are restored at some point in the future. Finally, note that the last lines of the paragraph implicitly acknowledge the lack of success of the Islamic parties in the 1970 elections. However, students are instructed to disregard this because 'modern education' encouraged 'atheism and worldliness' and was the reason for defeat.

The 1947-77 gap in textbooks makes it difficult to develop an adequate background for the Nizam-i-Mustafa Movement, which culminated in General Zia ul Haq's government's accession to power. Restrictions, whether self-imposed or otherwise, do not allow explicit mention of the names of key national figures. This constraint occasionally leads to awkward situations. For example, all textbooks give 'rigging of elections' as a motivation for the Nizam-i-Mustafa Movement, but none can explicitly state that these were rigged by Bhutto. Curiously, we were unable to discover any mention of the PNA (Pakistan National Alliance), which spearheaded the movement against Bhutto.

Subtle propaganda is not a sin of which our textbook writers are guilty.

Islamisation in Textbooks
Islamisation is the central concern of all modern Pakistan studies textbooks. After Partition, only three subsequent events are discussed in detail. First, they treat the Objectives Resolution of 1949, which gave the sovereignty over the state of Pakistan to Allah and which separated Muslims from non-Muslims as having different rights of citizenship. Secondly, they harp on the presentation to the government of a twenty-two point programme framed by thirty-one prominent ulama in 1951. This programme later became part of the Manifesto of the Jamaat-i-Islami, acknowledged on the front cover of this document. The third event, which forms the bulk of post-Partition history, is the implementa-tion of Islamic principles by General Zia ul Haq.

Modern textbooks heavily stress the formal and ritualistic aspects of Islam, as against those which emphasise social justice. Science and secular knowledge are held in deep suspicion. Modern education, according to one book, should be shunned because it leads to atheism and worldliness. Another book describes an utopian society, one which supposedly existed at the time of Hazrat Nizam-ud-Din, as one in which ritual was meticulously adhered to:

Young and old, small and great, everyone had become regular at prayers. Apart from the five prayers, people enthusiastically said supplementary prayers of ishraq, chasht, zawal, and awabin. People used to ask each other of the verses to be read, or how many times to recite drud-sharif after prayers they kept supplementary fasts even after the month of Ramazan. [28]

The emphasis on ritualistic Islam in modern textbooks is accompanied by a conscious promotion of sentiment against certain non-Muslim communities, particularly Hindus and Qadianis. This is not something new, one may legitimately argue, nor is the exacerbation of communal antagonism limited to Pakistan alone. India, which claims to be secular rather than Hindu, is nevertheless regularly ravaged by communal riots with the majority of victims being Muslims. Hindu chauvinism is a powerful factor in Indian politics and expresses itself through a variety of newspapers and magazines, even though propaganda through school texts is officially forbidden. However, in Pakistan, because of the adoption of an exclusivist national ideology, there are no constraints on the free expression of communal hatred. Thus, the Hindu is portrayed as monolithically cunning and treacherous, obsessively seeking to settle old scores with his erstwhile masters. This Hindu is responsible for the break-up of Pakistan:

The same Bengali Hindu was responsible for the backwardness of East Pakistan. But, hiding the story of his two-century old sins, atrocities, and pillage, he used 'Bengali nationalism' to punish innocent West Pakistanis for sins they had not committed. [29]

Justice Shameem Hussain Kadri, ex-chief justice of the Lahore High Court, writes of the 'diabolical Hindus' and 'Hindu conspiracies' in his officially circulated book.[30] There are countless similar examples.

In part, the existence of anti-Hindu sentiment is a consequence of the wholesale communal massacres during Partition, which left around half a million dead on each side. Even under the best conditions the scars would need many decades to heal. But the explanation for the revival of communalist sentiment is not to be found wholly in the tragedies of 1947. An examination of history texts written soon after Partition - a time when the grief of shattered families was at its peak - shows them to be incomparably more liberal. The history of the subcontinent was taken to start with the ancient Indus valley civilisations rather than with the conquest of India by the first Muslim invader, Mohammad bin Qasim, in 712. In contrast to present-day books, these books contained discussions of the empires of Ashoka and the Mauryas. The movement for Pakistan was presented as a defence against Hindu domination, not as a movement for religious revival.

The deliberate revival of communal antagonism over 30 years after Partition suggests that political expediency, rather than religious factors, has asserted a dominant influence in this matter. The permanent militarisation of society requires a permanent enemy. For many reasons, Pakistan's other neighbours are unsuitable for this purpose. On the other hand, rulers in both India and Pakistan have long found mutual hostility and tension indispensable political tools.

Conclusion
The change in character of Pakistani education, and the rewriting of Pakistan's history, coincide with the change in nature of the ruling elites and altered needs. The Westernised liberal elite, which had inherited political power from the British, had given to education a basically secular and modern character which might have eventually created a modern, secular-minded citizenry. But the self-seeking and opportunistic nature of this elite forced it progressively to abandon liberal values in the face of exigencies, political and economic. Discriminatory laws against non-Muslim minorities were passed, the feudal structure of rural society was left intact, and quality education was limited to a tiny minority. The ambient corruption in society gradually diffused into institutions which could have transformed and modernized Pakistani society. By the time of the 1977 army coup, liberalism was already moribund.

The recasting of Pakistani history is an attempt to fundamentally redefine Pakistan and Pakistani society and to endow the nation with a historic destiny. Islam is the integrative ideology, its enforcement a divine duty. Viewed from this angle, it becomes essential to project the movement for Pakistan as the movement for an Islamic state, the creation of which became a historic inevitability with the first Muslim invasion of the subcontinent. The revised history of Pakistan uses much the same idiom, and the same concepts of Islamic state and of politics in Islam, as the Jamaat-i-Islami. Its wholesale dissemination through educational institutions demonstrates both the influence of the Jamaat on education as well as the confluence of interests and philosophy of military rulers and the Jamaat.

Notes:
[1.] University Grants Commission directive, quoted in Azhar Hamid, et al. Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan (Islamabad: Allama Iqbal Open University, 1983), p. xi.
[2.] Ibid., pp. xii-xiii.
[3.] Government of Pakistan, Federal Ministry of Education, Pakistan Studies (Compulsory) For Intermediate Classes by Safdar Mahmood, et al. (Islamabad: Government of Pakistan). Approved for the Departments of Education of the Punjab, Sind, NWFP, Baluchistan, Federal Areas, and liberated Kashmir vide notification number F.11-16/81-HST, dated 2 November 1981, as the sole textbook for intermediate classes.
[4.] S. Husain and M. A. Hasan, Mukhzun Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan (Lahore: Kitab Khana Danishwuran, 1981), p. 1.
[5.] Nawa-i-Waqt (Karachi), 14 August 1984.
[6.] S. Husain and M. A. Hasan, Mukhzun Mutalliyah, p. 2.
[7.] M. D. Zafar, Pakistan Studies for Medical Students (Lahore: Aziz Publishers, 1982), p. 20.
[8.] Mohammad Munir, From Jinnah to Zia (Lahore: Vanguard Books Ltd.,1980), p. 26.
[9.] Abul Ala Maudoodi, Islamic Law and Constitution, ed. Khurshid Ahmed (Karachi: Jamaat-i-Islami Publications, 1955).
[10.] Jamiluddin Ahmed, Recent Writings and Speeches of Mr. Jinnah (Lahore: Sheikh Mohammad Ashraf, 1947), p. 176.
[11.] Azhar Hamid, et al., Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan, p. 27.
[12.] Raja of Mahmudabad, 'Some Memories', in Partition of India - Policies and Perspectives 1937-1947, eds. C. H. Philips and M. D. Wainwright (Cam-bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970), pp. 388-9.
[13.] Ibid., p. 389.
[14.] C. H. Philips and M. D. Wainwright, Partition of India, p. 32.
[15.] Azhar Hamid, et al., Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan, p. 221.
[16.] Khalid bin Sayeed, 'Personality of Jinnah and his Political Strategy', in C.H. Philips and M. D. Wainwright, Partition of India, pp. 276-93.
[17.] M. Munir, From Jinnah to Zia, p. 30.
[18.] Ibid., p. 29.
[19.] Jamiluddin Ahmed, Recent Writings and Speeches, p. 248.
[20.] K. K. Aziz, The Making of Pakistan (Islamabad: National Book Foundation, 1976).
[21.] Quoted in Sarwat Sawlat, Pakistan Ke Baray Log (Lahore, 1982), pp.295-6.
[22.] Abul Ala Maudoodi, Mussalman Aur Maujooda Syasi Kashmakash, quoted in K. K. Aziz, The Making of Pakistan, p. 148.
[23.] Maulana Kausar Niazi, Maudoodiat Awam Ki Adalat Men (Lahore: n.d.).
[24.] Zia-ul-Haq, quoted in M. D. Zafar, Pakistan Studies, p.147.
[25.] S.M. Rafeeq, Tehrik-i-Pakistan (Lahore: Standard Book House,1983), p. 271.
[26.] Azhar Hamid, et al., Mutalliyah-i-Pakistan, p. 233.
[27.] Ibid., p. 235.
[28.] Ibid., p. 41.
[29.] Ibid., p. 32.
[30.] Justice Shameem Hussain Kadri, The Creation of Pakistan (Lahore: Army Book Club, 1983).
Go to the South Asia Citizens Web | Return to 'Educating to Hate'

Rewriting the History of Pakistan by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Abdul Hameed Nayyar (1985) (http://www.sacw.net/HateEducation/1985HoodbhoyNayyar06022005.html)

Therefore, your being like a tank button down and periscopes blocked with grease, is not difficult to understand!

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 10:22
1) How do we know that the bombs exploded were plutonium based only and not Uranium as well as Plutonium based? Who analyzed the fallout and is the result public? Acknowledged by whom?

Americans assesd that both Indian and Pakistan based Nuclear Explosions were not upto the Yield they said it were, and were lower. They also assesd that both of the Pokran and Changi Test were plutonium based, WHile it is well known that India had a plutonium based Program, and Pakistan is Uranium. Heck, Pakistan doesnt even have a source to produce Plutonium just Uranium.

2)
How do we know that the bombs were actually made in china, what if the blueprints were from China but the bombs were manufactured in Pakistan

Because Pakistan doesnt have any materials, namely Plutonium

3)
How do we know that the bombs were low yield thermonuclear bombs rather than conventional explosives? I remember reading somewhere that the bombs were actually low yield enough to be non nuclear.

Only India exploded a Thermo Nuclear Bomb. Outsiders can asses through Satallites and Ritcher measurements. You have to understand that Western Powers have conducted 1000's of Tests.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:23
I rather not comment on this one, What the world generally views on Pakistan's contribution to world peace is quite well known.

I wasn't asking for your comment on this but rather WhamBam's comment since he made the observation. My statement was "this shows the mentality of pakiphobes" and my statement was based on the video but since you seem to be in touch with WhamBam's way of percieving things perhaps you can explain how it "shows my mentality" which was the question I directed at WhamBam. Once again, I am simply asking for an explanation of how "my mentality" has been mysteriously analyzed and catalogued based on one phrase I made on the mentality of the person who made this video presentation.

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 10:24
I wasn't asking for your comment on this but rather WhamBam's comment since he made the observation. My statement was "this shows the mentality of pakiphobes" and my statement was based on the video but since you seem to be in touch with WhamBam's way of percieving things perhaps you can explain how it "shows my mentality" which was the question I directed at WhamBam. Once again, I am simply asking for an explanation of how "my mentality" has been mysteriously analyzed and catalogued based on one phrase I made on the mentality of the person who made this video presentation.

Experience.

Ray
19 Dec 07,, 10:24
Maqsad,


Chum, read what the Pakistani article has to show who is the indoctrinated people living in falsehood!

Your mentality is based on your background and the background has been amply described by the Pak article that I have appended!

Vinod2070
19 Dec 07,, 10:26
its funny though and shows the mentality of all the pakphobic brainwashed hindus in India:


Please explain, how does me merely commenting on the mentality of a pakiphobe who made a video with bitter, offensive comments directed at ***** "definately" show my mentality?


See a difference. ;)

Therein lies my response.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:27
Maqsad,

If you look at your school books you would realise who is brainwashed.

You are after all a product of this:


Therefore, your being like a tank button down and periscopes blocked with grease, is not difficult to understand!

Ray I will read through your quote later on in more detail, and then try to relate it to your army slang analogy to see if I can make sense of your post. If you have anything else to add as to how you believe I am brainwashed it might help me make more sense of your post, much appreciated. I assume of course that your post is not too far off topic in the thread.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:29
See a difference. ;)

Therein lies my response.

I see a difference in spelling, I will analyze your response for subtle metaphors later on when time permits.

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 10:34
The Guy who made the video doesnt like Pakistan, I dont like Pakistan. What is your point? For all you know he might be Christian, Especially since the whole world knows How Pakistan treats its minorities including the muslim one's Shia's and Ahemdiya's. As Ray has said, You will not understand our point of view because from very early childhood you are indoctrinated with lies about every other country and your own.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:35
Americans assesd that both Indian and Pakistan based Nuclear Explosions were not upto the Yield they said it were, and were lower. They also assesd that both of the Pokran and Changi Test were plutonium based, WHile it is well known that India had a plutonium based Program, and Pakistan is Uranium. Heck, Pakistan doesnt even have a source to produce Plutonium just Uranium.



So then you are saying that firstly nobody accepted that pakistan had a plutonium enriching program and secondly that the pakistanis themselves said the explosions were from a uranium based bomb...but that the pakistani govt was not telling the truth?



2)

Because Pakistan doesnt have any materials, namely Plutonium

3)


And this is confirmed by the Pakistani govt? That there is no plutonium program in Pakistan and never was?



Only India exploded a Thermo Nuclear Bomb. Outsiders can asses through Satallites and Ritcher measurements. You have to understand that Western Powers have conducted 1000's of Tests.

By Thermo Nuclear do you mean fusion bomb versus fission bomb? aka hydrogen bomb? When did I say pakistan exploded a hydrogen bomb. When did anyone?

Ray
19 Dec 07,, 10:37
Ray I will read through your quote later on in more detail, and then try to relate it to your army slang analogy to see if I can make sense of your post. If you have anything else to add as to how you believe I am brainwashed it might help me make more sense of your post, much appreciated. I assume of course that your post is not too far off topic in the thread.

What army slang?

I don't use slang or cuss words either.

Not to worry about it being off topic, because I am sure you have not been appointed a Moderator so far to worry about it. Rest in Peace.

Obviously you are ill at ease with the truth appended and that too from something not written by Pakphobic Hindu etc etc but by sterling silver Pakistanis of repute! ;)

Sure would love to hear your dissection of what you Pak educated brethren have written!

It will indicate who is living on falsehood!

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:40
The Guy who made the video doesnt like Pakistan, I dont like Pakistan. What is your point? For all you know he might be Christian, Especially since the whole world knows How Pakistan treats its minorities including the muslim one's Shia's and Ahemdiya's. As Ray has said, You will not understand our point of view because from very early childhood you are indoctrinated with lies about every other country and your own.

My point is that you don't like pakistanis(as you just admitted) so if you want to make any biased and prejudiced accusations against me PERSONALLY then back them up with verfiable facts or some sort of logic rather than this spammy babble. I mean its a step forward that you admitted you have venomous hatred towards all pakistanis, I suspected it. Now I am just establishing that even if you want to flame or spew more babble...do it in a civilized manner and try to make sense rather than the ridiculous spam(which is quite interesting but its annoying at the same time).

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:44
What army slang?

I don't use slang or cuss words either.

Not to worry about it being off topic, because I am sure you have not been appointed a Moderator so far to worry about it. Rest in Peace.

Obviously you are ill at ease with the truth appended and that too from something not written by Pakphobic Hindu etc etc but by sterling silver Pakistanis of repute! ;)

Sure would love to hear your dissection of what you Pak educated brethren have written!

It will indicate who is living on falsehood!

Eh? I just asked you to make sense...its obvious your babbling is the start of a pissing contest you want to start really badly and I don't really accept your opinion as "truth" LOL thats your truth not mine. In fact I can't even make sense of it basically you are just spamming the thread because my statment "it shows the mentality of pakphobes" prompted you to start a flamewar. And I never accused you of cussing.

Ray
19 Dec 07,, 10:44
Maqsad,

I assure you I LIKE Pakistanis.

But not the humbug spewed by the radical ones or the ones who have blinkers on like tonga nags!

Are you suggesting Hoodbhoy and Nayyar are bogus chaps?

Personally, I could care less if the Pak bomb is made of Plutonium, Uranium or even sand!!!

But I sure do mind if someone talks utter tripe like Pakphobic Hindu etc etc. And if such irrelevant bilgewater is flushed down, then it sure would become necessary to bring the slur on even ground!

You have to be a match for me to start a flame war. I don't attack the deprived and unarmed!

For Christ's sake, do not over estimate yourself!

I have no desire to enter into a discussion any further. And I would rather take the recourse to informing the Moderators.

Adux,

I did not say anything. It was 'said' by two reputed personage of Pakistan Hoodbhoy and Nayyar.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:52
Maqsad,

I assure you I LIKE Pakistanis.

But not the humbug spewed by the radical ones or the ones who have blinkers on like tonga nags!

Are you suggesting Hoodbhoy and Nayyar are bogus chaps?

I don't know who Hoodhboy or Nayyar are but Addux was just honest enough to admit he despises pakistan and like I said you and Aduxx's propaganda posts are somewhat interesting but unless there is a special section on this board devoted to flame wars and pissing contests I don't think its wise for me with such few posts to continue in that direction, capiche? :))

So anyway I started the topic just to have a narrowly focused discussion on the **** nuclear program, specifically the topic of whether or not usable nukes even exist. If there is a sandpit here I am unaware of where indo-pak flames are allowed please direct me there and I can respond in the manner certain people are just dying to have me respond. Otherwise I think these tangents have to be deadended now, don't you?

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 10:57
But I sure do mind if someone talks utter tripe like Pakphobic Hindu etc etc. And if such irrelevant bilgewater is flushed down, then it sure would become necessary to bring the slur on even ground!

You have to be a match for me to start a flame war. I don't attack the deprived and unarmed!

For Christ's sake, do not over estimate yourself!

I have no desire to enter into a discussion any further. And I would rather take the recourse to informing the Moderators.

Adux,

I did not say anything. It was 'said' by two reputed personage of Pakistan Hoodbhoy and Nayyar.

Ahh an update, well if you don't want to start a "flame war" which you claim you are infinately better equipped to fight(and I assume experienced at) then the trick is not to make things personal as you have done. My comment about a random Indian on youtube being pakphobic is nothing to do with you and requires no reaction from you, certainly not a personalized one especially if you claim not to want to start a flamewar.

Ray
19 Dec 07,, 11:01
Ahh an update, well if you don't want to start a "flame war" which you claim you are infinately better equipped to fight(and I assume experienced at) then the trick is not to make things personal as you have done. My comment about a random Indian on youtube being pakphobic is nothing to do with you and requires no reaction from you, certainly not a personalized one especially if you claim not to want to start a flamewar.

A bland provoking statement without facts backing up is surely a good way to up the ante, which seems to have been your point since it appears that you were contributing nothing substantial to prove your point!

What do you mean by this"


its funny though and shows the mentality of all the pakphobic brainwashed hindus in India:

I sure object to the way you have used the word "Hindu". It shows your brainwashed attitude and so I appended the article to indicate how you all are fed with falsehood! India is NOT a Hindu state. It is SECULAR and I am a part of it and would seriously object to be clubbed as a religious group! Get that right! :mad:

You all are so bigoted that you think India is Hindu! Is it because you are embarrassed that you are Islamic theological country that enforces Islamic laws on non Moslem and so being downright religiously dictatorial and arbitrary! And so you wish to equate India with such irrationality!

Anyway enough of my wasting time on you!

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 11:04
A bland statement without facts backing up is surely a good way to up the ante, which seems to have been your point since it appears that you were contributing nothing substantial to prove your point!

Anyway enough of my wasting time on you!

Your posts in the thread do somewhat corraborate my statement. Anyway, chow!

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 11:07
I don't know who Hoodhboy or Nayyar are but Addux was just honest enough to admit he despises pakistan and like I said you and Aduxx's propaganda posts are somewhat interesting but unless there is a special section on this board devoted to flame wars and pissing contests I don't think its wise for me with such few posts to continue in that direction, capiche? :))



I dont like Pakistani's not Pakistan as a country. There you go.

Ray
19 Dec 07,, 11:09
Your posts in the thread do somewhat corraborate my statement. Anyway, chow!

It corroborates nothing except that your are product of your warped education that runs away from history and rewrites it to suit a false agenda.

Also get educated about your country's education system and false premises from:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa511.pdf

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 11:09
So then you are saying that firstly nobody accepted that pakistan had a plutonium enriching program and secondly that the pakistanis themselves said the explosions were from a uranium based bomb...but that the pakistani govt was not telling the truth?


You need a Plutonium Reactor to make Plutonium. Do you have one. Pakistani's dont make Reactors, do they now.


And this is confirmed by the Pakistani govt? That there is no plutonium program in Pakistan and never was?

When did we need anything to be confirmed by Pakistani Government. When the truth established links have been exposed by the West and the rest of the world.

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 11:11
My point is that you don't like pakistanis(as you just admitted) so if you want to make any biased and prejudiced accusations against me PERSONALLY then back them up with verfiable facts or some sort of logic rather than this spammy babble. I mean its a step forward that you admitted you have venomous hatred towards all pakistanis, I suspected it. Now I am just establishing that even if you want to flame or spew more babble...do it in a civilized manner and try to make sense rather than the ridiculous spam(which is quite interesting but its annoying at the same time).

I am not going to spoon feed you, google it up. There is plenty there especially from Strategic insitutiions.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 11:12
I dont like Pakistani's not Pakistan as a country. There you go.

I assume you meant to write you don't like pakistanis NOR pakistan as a country. Yes, I suspected that but thanks for confirming it.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 11:15
You need a Plutonium Reactor to make Plutonium. Do you have one. Pakistani's dont make Reactors, do they now.



When did we need anything to be confirmed by Pakistani Government. When the truth established links have been exposed by the West and the rest of the world.

Do you have any links that explain all the basics of nuclear technology etc etc while analyzing the pakistani claims in a critical manner? I assume if it is such a big scandal there must be neutral sources to back it up here and there since '98. I just don't follow military technology, much less nuclear technology. I am sure many people reading this thread would appreciate such a link(neutral).

P.S. I will be googling it too, so no worries if no such neutral links exist that you care to post.

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 11:19
I assume you meant to write you don't like pakistanis NOR pakistan as a country. Yes, I suspected that but thanks for confirming it.

I have no special interest in the destruction or greatness of Pakistan as a country. I rather have them live happily. It doesnt matter to me what you conjure up my thoughts are. Frankly I am not above biasesness, and I dont need you to tell me that. I am very much disappointed in Pakistani mentality and their sense of morality and justice. Which I may add is far different and medival compared to the rest of the world. A country which is the harbour of all known terrorist of the world, The country which is being used by Oil Shiekhs of the Gulf to run their war, but all the while keeping their own countries all very western friendly, Because of which I cant travel properly around the world, unfortuantly for me my skin colour resembles that of the people who creates the most troubles and death

Neo
19 Dec 07,, 11:59
I don't see a mushroom cloud though. Shouldn't a shroom cloud come up or were the nukes too deep for that?
Myshroom cloud only appears in atmospheric testing, IIRC last atmospheric test was conducted by China on 16 October 1980.

Nukes detonated by India and Pakistan in 1998 were underground.

Neo
19 Dec 07,, 12:00
Its an underground test. Pakistani Bombs were of very low yield. Pakistani bombs are definitly made in China, One reason. Khan and all were doing Uranium based nuclear bomb while those exploded is Plutoniom based.

Don't claim unless you can prove it!

Neo
19 Dec 07,, 12:16
1) How do we know that the bombs exploded were plutonium based only and not Uranium as well as Plutonium based? Who analyzed the fallout and is the result public? Acknowledged by whom?
May 28-30, 1998: Pakistan conducted a series of low yield nuclear tests, Six were sucessfull and the seventh reportedly failed.
Atleast one of the nukes was Pu-based.

According to a preliminary analysis conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory, material released into the atmosphere during an underground nuclear test by Pakistan in May 1998 contained low levels of weapons-grade plutonium. The significance of the Los Alamos finding was that Pakistan had either imported or produced plutonium undetected by the US intelligence community. But Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other agencies later contested the accuracy of this finding.


2) How do we know that the bombs were actually made in china, what if the blueprints were from China but the bombs were manufactured in Pakistan
We don't! We used Chinese designs, the bombs were produced in Pakistan.
We had them ready for testing since 1987!


3) How do we know that the bombs were low yield thermonuclear bombs rather than conventional explosives? I remember reading somewhere that the bombs were actually low yield enough to be non nuclear.
I'm not an expert in this field but conventional explosives don't measure up against nuclear bombs. The first and most powerful test measured a yield of 12 kiloton (official claim 25-36 kiloton).
Do you know how many comventional explosives you need to measure that up??

We tested atleast 3 sub-kiloton nukes since PA has a requirement to have low yield nukes, powerful enough to wipe out complete batallions of intruding armies.

Neo
19 Dec 07,, 12:22
Americans assesd that both Indian and Pakistan based Nuclear Explosions were not upto the Yield they said it were, and were lower. They also assesd that both of the Pokran and Changi Test were plutonium based, WHile it is well known that India had a plutonium based Program, and Pakistan is Uranium. Heck, Pakistan doesnt even have a source to produce Plutonium just Uranium.
Wrong! We have a very expensive and diverse nuclear programme using both HEU and Pu.


2)

Because Pakistan doesnt have any materials, namely Plutonium
We do! Pu based Khushab reactor built in early nineties. :)


3)

Only India exploded a Thermo Nuclear Bomb. Outsiders can asses through Satallites and Ritcher measurements. You have to understand that Western Powers have conducted 1000's of Tests.

Chaghai tests measured 4.5 at Richter scale, equivalent of approx. 12 kiloton.

Neo
19 Dec 07,, 12:26
So then you are saying that firstly nobody accepted that pakistan had a plutonium enriching program and secondly that the pakistanis themselves said the explosions were from a uranium based bomb...but that the pakistani govt was not telling the truth?

And this is confirmed by the Pakistani govt? That there is no plutonium program in Pakistan and never was?

Pakistan's nuclear program is based primarily on highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is produced at the A. Q. Khan research laboratory at Kahuta, a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility. The Kahuta facility has been in operation since the early 1980s. By the early 1990s, Kahuta had an estimated 3,000 centrifuges in operation, and Pakistan continued its pursuit of expanded uranium enrichment capabilities.

In the 1990s Pakistan began to pursue plutonium production capabilities. With Chinese assistance, Pakistan built the 40 MWt (megawatt thermal) Khusab research reactor at Joharabad, and in April 1998, Pakistan announced that the reactor was operational. According to public statements made by US officials, this unsafeguarded heavy water reactor generates an estimated 8-10 kilotons of weapons grade plutonium per year, which is enough for one to two nuclear weapons. The reactor could also produce tritium if it were loaded with lithium-6. According to J. Cirincione of Carnegie, Khusab's plutonium production capacity could allow Pakistan to develop lighter nuclear warheads that would be easier to deliver with a ballistic missile.

Plutonium separation reportedly takes place at the New Labs reprocessing plant next to Pakistan's Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (Pinstech) in Rawalpindi and at the larger Chasma nuclear power plant, neither of which are subject to IAEA inspection.

Neo
19 Dec 07,, 12:36
Khushab Nuclear Reactor

The heavy water research reactor at Khushab is a central element of Pakistan's program for production of plutonium and tritium for advanced compact warheads. The Khushab facility, like that at Kahuta, is not subject to IAEA inspections. Khushab, with a capacity variously reported at between 40 MWT to 50 MWT [and as high as 70 MWT], was "commissioned" in March 1996, and had been under construction with Chinese assistance since the mid-1980s. According to a Pakistani press report ["Pakistan's Indigenous Nuclear Reactor Starts Up," Islamabad The Nation, April 13, 1998], the Khushab plutonium production reactor had gone critical and began operating in early 1998.

Plutonium is the preferred material for building light, sophisticated warheads, since highly enriched uranium (HEU) generally results in bulkier weapons. Prior to the start-up of Khushab, Pakistan was dependent on the production of highly enriched uranium at Kahuta. The Khushab reactor provides Pakistan the ability to produce enough plutonium each year to fabricate at least one bomb, and perhaps as many as three to five bombs [depending on the efficiency of the bomb design and the reactor's actual output].

The actual plutonium output of Khushab is dependent on both the thermal power level, as well as the actual operating time. Pakistan's prior history of operating the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP), for many years Pakistan's only working nuclear power plant, suggests that the Khushab reactor may have a rather low operating availability. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the KANUPP lifetime energy availability factor (as of the end of 1997) was 28.6%, one of the worst performing nuclear power plants in the world. For the period 1989-1996 KANUPPs capacity factor (the ratio of actual electrical production versus designed power) was only 34%. Although the CANDU reactor at KANUPP is of different design than Khushab, this history suggests that Khushab may produce substantially less plutonium than its theoretical capacity.

Pakistan initially sought to produce plutonium weapons, but these plans were frustrated with the 1977 cancellation by France of the planned sale of a reprocessing plant at Chasma. As of 1995 the US Government had no indication that Pakistan had the capability to reprocess plutonium.

According to a 14 September 1996 CIA report, the China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation sold a special industrial furnace and high-tech diagnostic equipment. It was subsequently reported that the equipment was intended for the Khushab facility. High temperature furnaces are used to mold uranium or plutonium.

Pakistan succeeded in illicitly acquiring a tritium purification and storage plant, and tritium precursor materials from two German firms.

The United States apparently obtained a commitment from China not to supply the heavy water necessary to start up this unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor. But in March 1998 it was reported that China had supplied Pakistan with far more heavy water than needed to operate the safeguarded Kanupp nuclear power reactor, suggesting that Pakistan would be able to divert heavy water from the civilian plant to the Khushab military plant. Although these concerns received considerable political attention in the late 1990s, it is evident from IKONOS satellite imagery that the Khushab complex includes a heavy water production facility.

Institute for Science and International Security
Analysis of the plutonium production reactor
Analysis of the newly-identified heavy water plant

Khushab - Pakistan Special Weapons Facilities (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khushab.htm)

Neo
19 Dec 07,, 12:37
Latest stallite pictures confirm that atleast two more reactors are under construction in Khushab. :)

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 13:15
Myshroom cloud only appears in atmospheric testing, IIRC last atmospheric test was conducted by China on 16 October 1980.

Nukes detonated by India and Pakistan in 1998 were underground.

Yeah I suspected as much but just wanted to have it confirmed and/or denied so threw it out.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Dec 07,, 14:47
Just to add to Neo's comment about Pakistan expanding its Plutonium based Nuclear program:



Pakistan Appears to be Building a Third Plutonium Production Reactor at Khushab Nuclear Site

David Albright and Paul Brannan
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
June 21, 2007

Commercial satellite imagery from DigitalGlobe taken on June 3, 2007 indicates that Pakistan appears to be building a third plutonium production reactor at the Khushab nuclear site (see Figure 1). On July 24, 2006, ISIS published imagery revealing the construction of a second heavy water reactor at Khushab. The second heavy water reactor, which Pakistan began building between 2000 and 2002, is still under construction in the June 3, 2007 imagery. When operational, this reactor could be as large as several hundred megawatts thermal, notwithstanding claims by Pakistan of its intended initial power capacity.
The third reactor appears to be a replica of the second heavy water reactor and is located a few hundred meters to the north, though construction is progressing much more quickly than the second. A GeoEye image of the same area in Khushab taken in August of 2006 shows only a faint dirt foundation and no structures (see Figure 2). Almost all of the third reactor construction visible in the June 3, 2007 image has taken place in the last 10 months.
The similarities between the second and third reactor construction projects indicate that the power of the third plutonium production reactor is likely to be similar to that of the second reactor (see Figures 1, 4, 5 and 6). The first Khushab reactor went critical in 1998 and looks significantly different from the second and third reactors (see Figure 3). The facilities at this site are not safeguarded by the IAEA and support Pakistans nuclear weapons program.
ISIS reported in January 18, 2007 the resumption of construction of what appears to be a plutonium separation facility at Chashma, a facility approximately 80 km west of Khushab. This reprocessing facility, which would be Pakistans second and is also unsafeguarded, is likely related to the construction of the two additional reactors at Khushab. When the reactors come on line, Pakistans demand for reprocessing capacity would increase significantly. The expanded construction at Khushab, and apparent resumption of activity at the Chashma plutonium separation plant, all occurring within the last six years, imply that Pakistans government has made a decision to increase significantly its production of plutonium for nuclear weapons.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/ThirdKhushabReactor.pdf

Officer of Engineers
19 Dec 07,, 15:01
Let's be clear on this. Western seismic data dispute the claim. success on both sides. Alot of explanations were put forth but some were just ludicrous, ie simultaneous explosions - now why would you do that in a test?

The Pak nukes were not test devices. You can't keep test devices around from 1987. They were part of their arsenals. The tests revealed problems with the arsenal (ie, remember what I stated about the 40% failure rate?). Presumably, these problems have been fixed but there will be other problems that cannot be revealed without further testing.

Only ONE air sample contained Pu, hardly an indication of a Pu device, not when U was so dominating in other samples but perhaps a Pu based trigger. Of course, it doesn't help when the Pu sample was contaminated after detection, allowing for no further examination.

The air samples have confirmed that the materials come from Pak and Indian reactors.

I have strong reservations about claims of sub-kiloton claims. It doesn't make sense tactically and frankly, a single howitzer battery could do the job alot faster and a whole lot better and without the mess. These were duds.

Kansas Bear
19 Dec 07,, 15:30
Heck, Pakistan doesnt even have a source to produce Plutonium just Uranium.


If Pakistan has a nuclear reactor, then it has a source to produce Plutonium. One of the by-products of running a nuclear reactor is Plutonium. Although, to make it weapons grade, you have to use acid to refine it.

BBC NEWS | INDEPTH | THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/nuclear_fuel/html/mining.stm)

BBC NEWS | INDEPTH | THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/nuclear_fuel/html/reprocessing.stm)

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 16:36
Kansas Bear,

I stand corrected. But I have various other proof which states that Chinese, North Korean hand in the development of Pakistani Nukes. The supply of M-11 and NoDong Missile's are gross violations of MTCR. Pakistani Nukes have obivious chinese imprints on them.

Adu

Agnostic Muslim
19 Dec 07,, 17:00
But I have various other proof which states that Chinese, North Korean hand in the development of Pakistani Nukes. The supply of M-11 and NoDong Missile's are gross violations of MTCR. Pakistani Nukes have obivious chinese imprints on them.

Adu

I don't think any country can claim to have a "absolutely indigenous" nuclear program (and it would be silly to reinvent the wheel, unless there is no other choice). Perhaps ours was with Western/Chinese input - whats important is that Pakistan has the capability, though OoE raises good points about doubts over how effective the Pakistani designs tested in Chaghai actually were. Nonetheless, deterrence has been achieved to some extent.

Vinod2070
19 Dec 07,, 17:20
AM, I agree with your point about deterrence having been achieved.

But historically Pakistan used this supposed deterrence to fuel terror in Kashmir and other parts of India and then threatened to have a very low threshold for using NWs if India retaliated across the borders.

Now don't you think, the 2002 Parakram mobilization broke this myth of nuclear deterrence as a shield for continuing the terror game? And there is little other meaning for this deterrent without that IMHO.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Dec 07,, 18:05
AM, I agree with your point about deterrence having been achieved.

But historically Pakistan used this supposed deterrence to fuel terror in Kashmir and other parts of India and then threatened to have a very low threshold for using NWs if India retaliated across the borders.

Now don't you think, the 2002 Parakram mobilization broke this myth of nuclear deterrence as a shield for continuing the terror game? And there is little other meaning for this deterrent without that IMHO.

I think a lot of things could have been avoided historically had the Kashmir dispute been settled, and a lot of things need to be looked at in light of the mistrust and existential fears that existed. And obviously I disagree with the allegation of "sponsoring terrorism across India", though support for Kashmiri militants/freedom fighters did exist, but that is a different discussion.

As I said, the nukes only provide us deterrence to some extent, possibly any moves from India that could be an "existential threat", such as unilateral abrogation of the IWT etc. (speculation on my part of course). While it may prevent an all out war, I don't think that it can deter limited strikes into Pakistan if India really wanted to. To that end an effective conventional deterrent is necessary. With respect to the 2002 mobilization, I am familiar with two opinions on it -

1. The nuclear deterrent did work and is what caused the mobilization to remain just that, and essentially mere posturing and a waste of men and money.

2. The Indians were calling Pakistan's bluff and it was in fact the response from the conventional Pakistani forces that was the deterrent.

An excerpt of an article detailing the second POV:


Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are considered to be absolutely essential to deter India from undertaking a wide range of coercive political-military behavior that could undermine Pakistan’s territorial integrity and political sovereignty. However, it is important to recognize that Pakistani defense planners still consider their conventional armed forces to be the first line of defense against Indian conventional military attack and the backbone of the country’s overall deterrence posture. It could be said that 95 percent of Pakistan’s strategic deterrent relies on a robust conventional military capability and deliberate and repeated demonstrations of the Pakistan leadership’s readiness to employ it decisively if attacked—or even seriously threatened with military attack.

Pakistan’s military conduct during the 2001-2002 crisis with India revealed this orientation. When India mobilized its armed forces for attack shortly after the 13 December 2001 terrorist strike against the Indian Parliament, Pakistan responded by immediately putting its own armed forces on a war footing. Pakistani military leaders were very satisfied that their ground forces were able to reach their designated strike positions more quickly than their opposite numbers, thus eliminating the element of surprise and nullifying any advantage that India might have by striking across the border first. It is widely speculated that Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee decided against a military attack when his troops had moved into their strike positions by the middle of January because Pakistani troop deployments indicated that Islamabad was well prepared to counter-strike at locations of its choosing, thus eliminating any advantage India would have gained by attacking first.

As far as I know, Pakistan's nuclear doctrine has not been made public, though there is some speculation regarding its "thresholds":


In fact, Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, director of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division (SPD)—the military organization created in 1999 to oversee the development, custody, and employment of nuclear weapons—affirmed to a pair of Italian physicists in 2002 that Pakistan would not make its nuclear doctrine public, as India did in August 1999.7
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (http://www.npec-web.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Single&PDFFile=20070121-Lavoy-PakistanNuclearPosture&PDFFolder=Essays)


Quoting the top Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai of the nuclear Strategic Plan Division (SPD), the report outlined Pakistan's four nuclear thresholds, adding that ''the nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India''.

It says nuclear weapons would be used if India crosses the ''space threshold'' -- if New Delhi attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part of its territory - and the ''military threshold'', if India destroys a large part of its land or air forces.

It also says Islamabad would resort to nuclear methods if India proceeds to pursue to the economic strangulation of Pakistan, and if India pushes Pakistan into ''political destabilization or creates a large scale internal subversion (there)
Economic Threat May Push Pakistan to Nukes - Report (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0204-06.htm)

If the latter source is to be believed, Pakistan to me seems to have set pretty high thresholds, almost all in "existential threat" situations.

Vinod2070
19 Dec 07,, 18:27
Thanks for the info AM.


I think a lot of things could have been avoided historically had the Kashmir dispute been settled

OK, seriously how many Pakistanis believe its only a question of Kashmir issue. I have no doubt there are few Pakistanis who will be hypothetically satisfied if they get Kashmir but most Indians do not believe that this is the only aim Pakistan has wrt India.

Certainly people in responsible postions in Pakistan have made statements that contradict what you say here. Hamid Gul publicly talked about the policy of a thousand cuts. Sahabzada Gohar used to say as a foreign minister that he is waiting for India to break up into parts.

The ISI is definitely trying to implement the policy of a thousand cuts as best it can. You have ISI modules all over India planting a bomb in a public park or a metro station or a crowded marketplace or a train. The idea of all this is not to indulge in a blame game here but to point out that many Indians just don't buy this arguement about Kashmir being the only agenda on Pakistan's plate.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Dec 07,, 18:43
Thanks for the info AM.

OK, seriously how many Pakistanis believe its only a question of Kashmir issue. I have no doubt there are few Pakistanis who will be hypothetically satisfied if they get Kashmir but most Indians do not believe that this is the only aim Pakistan has wrt India.

Certainly people in responsible postions in Pakistan have made statements that contradict what you say here. Hamid Gul publicly talked about the policy of a thousand cuts. Sahabzada Gohar used to say as a foreign minister that he is waiting for India to break up into parts.

The ISI is definitely trying to implement the policy of a thousand cuts as best it can. You have ISI modules all over India planting a bomb in a public park or a metro station or a crowded marketplace or a train. The idea of all this is not to indulge in a blame game here but to point out that many Indians just don't buy this arguement about Kashmir being the only agenda on Pakistan's plate.

What Indian's believe is up to them, but as a Pakistani this ranks up there with the most far fetched "conspiracy theories" I have heard.

Quite akin to the "Madrassa educated guy" (as Salim likes to put it), that believes that the evil Hindus have always been scheming to destroy Pakistan and the Ummah. The blame game of "planting bombs all over the country" is going to get no where. I have noticed that in India the hysterical finger pointing at the ISI after every incident (by higher public officials), has died down to some extent, and that is good. Both countries need to face the internal challenges they have.

Vinod2070
19 Dec 07,, 18:56
Cool. Nice getting your POV. :)

Neo
19 Dec 07,, 20:05
Wtf is wrong with you guys? :mad:

Why does every single thread about Pakistan has to go offtopic serving Indian propaganda? Are we discussing authencity of Pakistani nuclear claim or how 'cry baby India' has suffered for 60 years under 'evil jihadi muslim terrorist breeding nation called Pakistan'?

Do not abuse this board to serve your hidden agenda, its almost impossible to engage a sincere debate with all the trolling going arround this unmoderated section. :rolleyes:

I'm out of here! :(

Blademaster
19 Dec 07,, 20:28
I think a lot of things could have been avoided historically had the Kashmir dispute been settled, and a lot of things need to be looked at in light of the mistrust and existential fears that existed. And obviously I disagree with the allegation of "sponsoring terrorism across India", though support for Kashmiri militants/freedom fighters did exist, but that is a different discussion.


You are quite being two faced about it. When those "freedom fighters" blow up women and children, they are terrorists. Period.



2. The Indians were calling Pakistan's bluff and it was in fact the response from the conventional Pakistani forces that was the deterrent.


No it was not Pakistan's military that was the deterrant. It was the Americans and their investment dollars that was the deterrant. They threatened to pull out their investments out of India and Indian companies scared of losing their business cried to the PM and begged not to launch a war. The IA was not even intimidated by the PA.

Blademaster
19 Dec 07,, 20:30
Wtf is wrong with you guys? :mad:

Why does every single thread about Pakistan has to go offtopic serving Indian propaganda? Are we discussing authencity of Pakistani nuclear claim or how 'cry baby India' has suffered for 60 years under 'evil jihadi muslim terrorist breeding nation called Pakistan'?

Do not abuse this board to serve your hidden agenda, its almost impossible to engage a sincere debate with all the trolling going arround this unmoderated section. :rolleyes:

I'm out of here! :(

Oh I am sorry if we dared to bring out the truth that you are so afraid of bringing up. The truth hurts, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Agnostic Muslim
19 Dec 07,, 20:44
You are quite being two faced about it. When those "freedom fighters" blow up women and children, they are terrorists. Period.


When did I suggest that those who blew up innocent women and children are freedom fighters? Not all the Kashmiri militant groups engage in "blowing up women and children". And thats pretty much it from me on that issue on this thread.



No it was not Pakistan's military that was the deterrant. It was the Americans and their investment dollars that was the deterrant. They threatened to pull out their investments out of India and Indian companies scared of losing their business cried to the PM and begged not to launch a war. The IA was not even intimidated by the PA.

Whatever, believe what you want. I have quoted the article that I used as the basis of my second supposition of why the Indian mobilization didn't go further. Next time I'll add three...

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 20:56
2. The Indians were calling Pakistan's bluff and it was in fact the response from the conventional Pakistani forces that was the deterrent.



What Conventional might, we have over-whelming superiority over you in both conventional and nuclear forces.
Yes, Indian Army got scared in 2002 even though they enjoyed so much superiority in both military and economic aspects, as well as with their track record against the PA. Seriosuly my friend, you jest.:rolleyes:
Or maybe you think 1 pakistani = 10 Indians.

Agnostic Muslim
19 Dec 07,, 21:02
What Conventional might, we have over-whelming superiority over you in both conventional and nuclear forces.
Yes, Indian Army got scared in 2002 even though they enjoyed so much superiority in both military and economic aspects, as well as with their track record against the PA. Seriosuly my friend, you jest.:rolleyes:
Or maybe you think 1 pakistani = 10 Indians.

If you would bother to read, I quoted the report that made that argument, and it is not by a Pakistani. Agenda's indeed.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 21:15
Are there any non-Indian moderators that can put a stop to this off topic flaming and trolling by Indian nationalist fanatics here in this thread? This thread has become completely ridiculous with lunatics running wild and even openly admitting their rabid hatred of pakistan and all pakistanis:


I dont like Pakistani's not Pakistan as a country. There you go.

Adux
19 Dec 07,, 21:26
I always suspected this and then I saw this video on youtube made by a bitter Indian(what a surprise there), its funny though and shows the mentality of all the pakphobic brainwashed hindus in India:

.

Maqsad,

Lets check the very first post in this thread.

glyn
19 Dec 07,, 21:27
Are there any non-Indian moderators that can put a stop to this off topic flaming and trolling by Indian nationalist fanatics here in this thread? This thread has become completely ridiculous with lunatics running wild and even openly admitting their rabid hatred of pakistan and all pakistanis:

You will find that the moderators are even-handed in their decisions.Nationality doesn't come into it. However they cannot scrutinise every single post thats made, so to ensure a complaint reaches a moderator all you have to do is send a pm to one.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 21:31
You will find that the moderators are even-handed in their decisions.Nationality doesn't come into it. However they cannot scrutinise every single post thats made, so to ensure a complaint reaches a moderator all you have to do is send a pm to one.

Thanks for the tip, I should have used the panic button long ago instead of taking people on myself. Figured out how to do it now.

maqsad
19 Dec 07,, 21:36
Maqsad,

Lets check the very first post in this thread.

Yeah so? Its an assumption I made based on a youtube video I linked to which had some seemingly legitimate accusations I saw nowhere else...so basically you are getting upset that I called ONE RANDOM INDIAN ON YOUTUBE a "pakphobic brainwashed hindu" because he created a video depicting pakistanis as pigs(can be easily verified by watching the video) and included numerous other racist insults and taunts in the video. Oh gawwwwwd what is this world coming to! We now have pakistanis on this forum calling Indians on youtube who make hate videos HINDUS AS WELL AS BRAINWASHED! Oh my gawd! The nerve! :eek:

Parihaka
19 Dec 07,, 21:39
I'm in agreement with Neo on this;
you're using a discussion of the authenticity of Pakistan's nuclear claim to troll each other.
This thread is closed.

I'm totally open to a new one being opened as long as it sticks to topic and everyone stays away from India/Hindu Pakistan/Muslim troll baiting.
Neo, this section is not unmoderated, I've just been busy;)
maqsad, WhamBam, Adux & Ray, please stick to the topic and desist from trolling.


http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/administration/9122d1195979258-useful-pictures-hitler-lock.jpg