The Indian Scientists Against Nuclear Weapons (ISANW) was formed immediately after Pokhran II nuclear tests conducted by India in May 1998, as a spontaneous reaction to the changed nuclear scenario in the country. It aims to be a united informed body of scientists to work against the proliferation of nuclear armaments in the country. This monthly newsletter intends to keep its members updated about the activities of the group, as well as to circulate important articles and news items relevant to our work.

1. Voices against the Militarisation of Science

M. V. N. Murthy, Madan Rao, R. Shankar, J. Samuel, A. Sitaram

C.V. Raman and M.N. Saha are towering figures in Indian Science. Apart from their considerable scientific contributions, both of them were deeply committed to developing Indian Science, building Institutions and making science take root in this country as a positive social force. Both reflected deeply about aspects of science in relation to the society and believed that it must be used for humane ends. They used their considerable weight as reputed scientists in order to proclaim truths they believed in. They had contrasting styles: Raman was passionate and emotional, whereas Saha argued from a political and rational point of view. However, both were courageous and expressed their views in a fearless fashion. Not only were they great humanists, they were the social conscience of scientists of their times.

In the euphoria following Pokharan II, not many voices have been raised against the development of nuclear weapons. Indeed, one sometimes encounters the view that it is unpatriotic for citizens (scientists or otherwise) to question or disagree with national policy. We wish to point out that there are illustrious precedents for such disagreement. Both Raman and Saha were outspoken opponents of nuclear weapons. These are voices we sorely miss today. Indeed their words appear to have been forgotten. The purpose of this article is to remind the scientific community of these words. Their views are offered as a catalyst for introspection about the role of science in our society, and its ethical and moral foundations.

Raman against the Militarisation of Science

• On September 19, 1946, Raman addresses the Ceylon Association of Science thus:

  ``The atom-bomb is the latest weapon created by science for the benefit of war-mongers'' (Bombay Chronicle, Oct. 6, 1946).

  This was barely over a year after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Mayor of Hiroshima (or, probably, his representative) visited Raman after the devastation and presented him with two scorched pebbles from Hiroshima in appreciation of the views expressed by him. The two pebbles which still lie in the Museum at Raman Research Institute, Bangalore, are mute stone witnesses to the tragic events of August 6, 1945.

• In a stirring, emotional public lecture delivered in Hubli in December 1954, Raman, then the only Indian Nobel Laureate in Science, takes advantage of his public status:

  ``the world will be a better place if those who made these deadly bombs destroyed themselves and are dead and gone'' (The Hindu, Dec. 30, 1954).

• His message to the Annual Nobel Dinner on the 11th of January, 1958 is more reasoned if less emotional:

  ``I am also convinced that a policy of competition in the manufacture of weapons can serve no useful purpose and that, if continued, it would inevitably lead to an armed conflict. It also seems to me that the way to avoid such a conflict would be for the common people of all nations to assert themselves and resolve that in no circumstances would they be a party to the outbreak of war. It is necessary also that the policy makers in every country should appreciate the strength of such a resolve and that the leaders of the nations should get together and build a bridge of reconciliation and understanding between the peoples, who seem to-day to stand on the verge of conflict''.

• Raman's Convocation address in 1966 is a brilliant enunciation of his position. Speaking to a gathering at the IIT, Madras, he comes out openly, admonishing, warning, appealing. Only a couple of years after the Chinese nuclear tests, he traces the fear psychosis that has led to nuclear proliferation. Notice the language of conviction:

  `` ... here is an instrument of dreadful power. If we use it we can destroy mankind. And fear, the fear that the other man may use it led to the development of the atom bomb every where ..... (This fear is) like what happens to a man when he borrows money. You see the interest goes on adding up. It becomes a colossal figure, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the loan which he took at first. This kind of explosive development of fear complex has produced a psychological, a pathological, state of affairs in the human mind in which all evils thrive and sustain. .... today, science in many countries is simply the hand-maid of the war machine'' (emphasis added).

  At this stage he goes beyond the nuclear weaponisation issue, to the very practice of post-war science, and its nexus with the political and military establishment. He perceived that to an increasing extent, agendas and developments in the international arena of space and nuclear sciences were ``nothing but militarism very thinly disguised''.

  While he sounds optimistic in declaring that ``there are sensitive consciences even in those countries who revolt from this sort of thing'', he is not sure of where it would end -- ``it is going on, this prostitution of science''.

Saha against Nuclear Weaponisation

• While Saha and Raman differed on many aspects of development of science in the country, their views on nuclear weapons are almost identical. If anything Saha is more vocal in expressing his views:

  ``the logical pursuit (of utilising nuclear fission for military purposes) by rival power groups will mean the destruction of the present form of civilization ... " (Sci. and Culture 13, 86 (1947)).

• Quite early he realised that nuclear warfare should be banned---

  ``Though the possession of atomic weapons appears to constitute great military strength, actually it is not so. Its use constitutes a great moral sin against humanity. Its production involves immense organisation and cost, which only the big nations are capable of undertaking. It is effective only against great centers of population and industry, whose destruction would be an unpardonable crime against civilization.''

  Commenting on a decision made on December 18, 1954 by the NATO Council to base its military strategy on the use of nuclear weapons, he said, - ``The decision is immoral because the very persons in whose interest atomic weapons are proposed to be used would be its first victims. History teaches that `wars to end wars' , `violence to end violence' have never accomplished their objective. The consequence of the decison will be to intensify the race for nuclear armaments and endanger the peace of the world. If the conflagration spreads, as it is sure to do, it will lead to sheer mass destruction.'' He believed that the NATO decison made the destruction of modern civilization a technological possibility.

• On the attitude of scientists, intellectuals and artists towards the nuclear danger he has this to say:

  ``Apart from the fire-eating generals, admirals and politicians of the McCarthy type (and, we might add, scientists of the Teller type), the world opinion of scientists, artists and intellectuals is definitely against the manufacture and use of atomic weapons.''

• Note how this logical, reasoning scientist clearly always holds the larger good of humanity in mind:

  ``Those who are indulging in the testing of thermonuclear bombs, even in distant areas, cannot avoid the moral responsibility of committing a crime against humanity.''

  ``The atomic logic has been used since 1946 to frighten nations. The `Atomic war-mongering' is chiefly the work of ill-informed generals, admirals and politicians'' (Sci. and Cult. 21, 70, 1955).

Conclusion

In a letter addressed to many scientists around the world including Saha, Einstein had this to say :

``... Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since prehistoric man's discovery of fire. This basic power of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms. For there is no secret and there is no defence,; there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world.''

``We scientists recognize our inescapable responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of the simple facts of atomic energy and their implications for society. In this lie our only security and our only hope---we believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not for death.''

It is about time that the humanist tradition of science, so eloquently expressed by Raman and Saha, asserted itself in the collective conciousness of our community.

( This article was originally published in Current Science and is reproduced here with permission.)

2. Letters to ISANW

Nature review by Brahma Chellaney

In response to a letter from Satyajit Mayor regarding a book review in Nature, M V Ramana and Zia Mian write:

Two examples should suffice. First, Chellaney chooses to describe India's 1974 nuclear test as an "atomic detonation" and uncritically quotes "politicians" describing it as a "peaceful nuclear explosion". Such semantic evasions no longer carry any weight, if they ever did; even Raja Ramanna, former Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission and leader of the team that conducted the test described it as "a prototype weapon" [2]. Second, Chellaney attempts to suggest that India is unique among nuclear weapon states in having straddled the "nuclear fence" for a quarter of a century while having a democratic debate on whether it should "go nuclear". A less self-serving description would be that India spent decades building a ladder to climb over this imaginary nuclear fence, and when it came time to decide about whether to jump down on the other side, a handful of people around the Prime Minister made the decision, as has always been the case in Indian nuclear policy [3].

The real disservice that Chellaney does is to Abraham's book. By meticulously analyzing the archives of key scientists - what Chellaney disparagingly terms 'secondary sources' - Abraham shows how Indian scientists successfully used the twin ideologies of national security and national development to transform a small scientific laboratory into a full-blown nuclear weapons complex by 1974. His work demonstrates how the combination of science, ideology and the power of the state can be a recipe for disaster as much in the third world as in the first and second.

Abraham's real achievement, however, is using the early history of India's nuclear program to reveal the ways of thinking shared by India's elite which place nuclear weapons above providing even the most basic necessities to a large proportion of its citizens. It is at this level, the right of ordinary people to make meaningful choices about their lives, individually and collectively, in an informed and democratic way, that Abraham is really taking sides. It is a side he shares with Michael Foot, but one far removed from the cabals of "the wizards of armageddon" who make nuclear weapons and policy around the world.

1. Draft Report of the National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine,
http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html

2. Raja Ramanna, "Years of Pilgrimage," (Viking Books, New Delhi, 1991), p. 100

3. M. V. Ramana, "The Indian Nuclear Bomb: Long in the Making," Precis, Vol. 9, No. 3, Fall 1998.

Indian Scientists Against Nuclear Weapons
isanw@arbornet.org.
http://www.isanw.org/