The Hindu : Two scientists, two contrasting images

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Feb 08, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Two scientists, two contrasting images

By K. K. Katyal

NEW DELHI, FEB. 7. This is the story of two top scientists of Pakistan. One, Abdus Salaam, a straightforward person, with great regard for India and its accomplishments — alas, no more now. Two, Abdul Qadeer Khan, architect of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, in deep trouble now in his country, despite the Presidential pardon, who has utter disdain for India and everything Indian. Two contrasting images.

The most illustrious scientist of the 20th century, Abdus Salaam, was in India shortly after he was awarded the Nobel prize in November 1979. One of the main purposes of his visit — a call on his professor, Hans Raj Bhatla, who gave him the very first lesson in physics in the early Forties at the Government Intermediate College, Jhang, his hometown, in Punjab, now in Pakistan. It was my ancestral town also and I had the privilege of being Salaam's contemporary there. Meeting him after over three decades was a great emotional experience, providing an opportunity for an informal, intimate interaction on all manner of issues. In one such conversation in New Delhi Ashoka Hotel's suite, Salaam expressed himself in favour of cooperation between India and Pakistan in science and technology, nuclear development, not excluded. "For peaceful uses of nuclear energy?" I inquired. "Even for producing the bomb," he replied.

Not a structured proposition, it was merely an expression of an inner urge but not any less important on that count. Two points were clear. One, both India and Pakistan, at that point of time, were far away from the stage of nuclear capability and, two, Salaam may not have had a blueprint for formal cooperation with India but there was, in one corner of his mind, a lurking desire to follow some such course. Salaam took Bhatla along with him as he visited the universities in various parts of India, competing to honour the Nobel laureate. He mooted a scheme — for the award of scholarships, from out of his prize money, to promising students in Pakistan (and in India, especially to those belonging to the families hailing from Jhang).

I hosted a small dinner for him, with the guests mostly from our ancestral town, now settled in India. One of them, not impressed by the distinguished scientist's advocacy for peace and harmony between India and Pakistan, burst out: "Let us fight it out — fight to the finish." Salaam's comment: "Our friend seems to be a contractor." Wherever he went during his stay here, he was greeted with abundant warmth and affection.

I have never met Dr. A.Q. Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, now in the news, but heard a lot about him. At times, the mere mention of "India", according to those who have met him, sets him off.

Sometime in late 1979, The Observer of London carried a long, well-researched article on Pakistan's desperate bid to obtain the nuclear know-how. It showed how Dr. Khan had stolen nuclear technology from The Netherlands to develop weapons. Pakistan's nuclear development was described as an act of tenacious espionage. One of the two journalists was an Indian, Shyam Bhatia, and the other his senior colleague, Colin Smith. Shyam's father, the late Prem Bhatia, editor-in-chief of The Tribune, Chandigarh, described the episode in his paper thus on September 11, 1980: "The two journalists of the reporting staff of The Observer collected the material for the article after research over a long period and their effort has since been recognised as substantially accurate ... But Pakistan's nuclear spy was greatly embarrassed over the disclosures made by The Observer. He is since known to have protested strongly to the Editor of the paper in a language which is extraordinary for its coarse anger and meanness of approach ... In his very abusive letter to The Observer — which has remained unpublished because of its vulgarity and unbecoming ill temper. ... It is amusing that the main thrust of the Pakistani scientist's attack on one of the two journalists who wrote the article is that it was Shyam's `Hindu' origin which led him to write the spy story."

What Mr. Bhatia said about Dr. Khan has now been confirmed by prestigious newspapers abroad. In a different context — export of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea — even the top men in the Pakistani establishment have accused Dr. Khan of illegal actions. The New York Times, for instance, had this to say in an Islamabad-datelined story the other day: "Khan, a metallurgist by training, was accused of stealing centrifuge design from a European country in the early 1970s. After returning to Pakistan, he ran a clandestine effort to buy the components needed to build thousands of precision centrifuges. The centrifuges which spin at extremely high speeds produce highly-enriched uranium, a key ingredient in a nuclear bomb."

As for the supplies to Iran, Libya and North Korea, there was no indication, according to Pakistani officials, that Dr. Khan had sold the technology to pay for Pakistan's nuclear programme. "The money was not funnelled back into the account."

Abdus Salaam belonged to the Amediya sect (or the Qadiani sect) which, under the pressure of fundamentalists in Pakistan, was declared non-Muslim. Salaam had to bear the brunt of the attacks by protesters during his visits to Pakistan even after receiving the Nobel prize. For him to work at a top position or in a sensitive area was out of question. Initially, recognition of his merit did find him in senior positions but then came a sudden end. And he had to go abroad — where the atmosphere was congenial for the flowering of his talent — at the Institute of Theoretical Physics, Trieste, (Italy), named after him after his death. It would be interesting to speculate what course the nuclear development processes would have taken in Pakistan had Salaam been at the helm of scientific affairs there.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Shine or sham?

The year of the rising

Ups and downs

BPO backlash

Two scientists, two contrasting images