You must be wondering what is meant by hibakusha. I did not know the term
either till Dr TADATOSHI AKIBA, Mayor of Hiroshima, uttered the word in my
presence on 21st October 2003. He told us that the term refers to
the survivors of the Atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki on 06 and 09 August 1945. Among these survivors are also those who
were in their mother’s wombs when the catastrophe occurred and even those who
were born later. They all passed through the trauma of physical and emotional
pain so intense that it cannot enter other people’s consciousness. Those born
later have physical and mental disabilities of various kinds. The mayor showed
us pictures which showed charred bodies, blotched and bleeding skins and people
in such despair that it boggles the imagination. In short, the two bombs did
not simply take civilian, innocent, non-belligerent lives; they added a new
dimension of horror which is yet to be grasped by the other people of the
world.
And where does the heroism of the hibakusha come in? It comes in first in their incredibly inspiring
confrontation with agony and destruction soon after the bombing. Then it
manifests itself in the reconstruction which took place after that. Mayor Akiba
showed us pictures of Hiroshima as it stands today---a modern city bustling
with life and affluence. And, above all, it shows itself in the survivors’
resolution to ensure that such a horrible experience, a nuclear attack, should
not be part of anybody’s experience. As Dr. Akiba spoke of their resolve his
voice rose and his face took on a resolute look. He said the survivors
transcended their own suffering and such was their stand against this evil that
they said that they did not want anybody else to suffer to such a trauma. This
‘anybody’ included President Truman of the U.S.A who had ordered the attack. It
included the military personnel of who had actually delivered the bomb and, of
course, it included the people of the United States in whose name this crime
against humanity was perpetrated.
This, I believe, is true heroism. Most other people is
the world would have vowed revenge. Even if the state had surrendered the
survivors would have organized militant groups to make ordinary Americans,
innocent like their dead and suffering friends and relatives, suffer to some
degree. In short, had the hibakusha
adopted the way of the United States government (government not people mind
you) after Nine Eleven or of the Islamic (and other) militants (militants not
all Muslims note again), the cycle of violence would never have stopped. Japan
would not have been an economically prosperous country nor could it have become
a force for peace and nuclear disarmament. All these positive changes have
occurred because the hibakusha had
the wisdom and courage not to lash out in anger but to recognize that the
nuclear bomb is a new kind of weapon. It poisons the earth and is, therefore,
completely evil. It is something which nobody should possess. It is nothing to
be proud of. It does not even save us from aggression by deterring would be
adventurers.
Indeed, I have
personally always wondered whether deterrence is not a myth after all? True the U.S.A and Soviet Russia did not go to
war but they did have proxy wars. They almost went to war over Cuba. They had
several accidents which could have led to disaster. In the absence of any real
reason for war the era of the Cold War was more full of tension and mistrust
and danger than any in the history of the world. So, was Professor Niels Bohr,
the great physicist, right that atomic power should be internationalized and no
weapons should be made or was Winston Churchill right who did not listen to
him? The so called men of the world, the Churchills and the Trumans of the
world, prevailed over the Russells and the Bohrs and the world is a time bomb
as a consequence. One wonders if the practical men are ever right about
anything?
The practical men now talk of deterrence in South Asia also. One
would suspect that in the case of Pakistan and India it does not seem to work.
In 1999 it was probably because nuclear weapons were there that Pakistani
decision-makers decided to go ahead with the Kargil operation. Indian nuclear
weapons did not deter Pakistani decision-makers. In December 2001 India brought
its forces on Pakistan’s borders and threatened war. Pakistani nuclear weapons
did not deter the Indian decision-makers from actions which could tilt the
balance on the side of overt conflict. The assumption on both sides was that
the other will not fight back. This assumption actually encourages
low-intensity warfare, belligerent gestures and covert guerrilla activity. In
short, it is the kind of absence of war which can hardly be called peace. It
can turn violent and once a war starts is there any guarantee that nuclear
weapons will not be used?
Moreover, I always worry about nuclear accidents. They have
occurred in the past so why can’t they occur now? In short, with the Damocles
sword of partial annihilation and widespread poisoning hanging over our heads,
is it really true that nuclear weapons create security for us? I believe they
do not. After all, if India did not detonate its nuclear device in 1974 it
would not have made itself insecure by forcing both Pakistan to follow suit.
Above all, as a humanist, I
think the hibakusha have the correct
answer. Nuclear weapons must be rejected simply because one would not like
anybody to suffer as the hibakusha
suffered. But if this is too unattainable a moral stature, then I would
recommend that they should be abandoned by all nuclear powers of the world,
above all the United States, out of purely pragmatic reasons: because they lead
to a false sense of security; because they actually encourage militant
adventurism and proxy wars; because they may be used accidentally; because they
may fall into wrong hands (even official hands may be ‘wrong’ sometimes) and
because, above all, they do not let wars remain wars. All wars have had victors
and losers or they may be draws. The chances of recovery and survival in wars
are reasonably high. Nuclear exchanges are not wars; they are the death
warrants of humanity---Is it wise then not to heed to the message of the hibakusha?