|
Introduction
As we enter
the new millennium, the globe is armed to the teeth with
myriad of weapons,
and at least in number a significant proportion of them
is small weaponry. Due to the availability of arms, a great
change has taken place globally, regionally and nationally.
In the nation-state system, not only are arms linked with
external security, but have also disrupted internal security.
As one expert observes, wars that were fought until the
20th century were always “counter-state” as against “counter-society”1
However, the scenario has changed today. Findings of a study
shows that in 1994, of the 31 major armed conflicts in 27
locations around the world, no ‘classic’ interstate war
was waged.2 This study attempts to demonstrate
the fact that armed violence are mainly internal on account
of a nexus between local politicians and a thriving underworld.
The
technology, quality, and use of arms have gone through a sea of change following
the explosion of the first nuclear bomb in Hiroshima in 1945. While the devastating
effects of the first atomic bomb made the issue of disarmament, arms control
and détente more vital for world peace, big powers, nonetheless, continued
to spend a lion’s share of their defense budget in nuclear research. With
the sudden disintegration of the Soviet Union, the western fear of the world
being dominated by communism naturally ceased. The Cold War had drained the
economies of major powers to the extent that domestic pressures wereforcing
governments to concentrate on nuclear disarmament and economic development.
However, while global and regional security paradigms were dominated by weapons
of mass destruction, a parallel proliferation that continued with greater
ease concerned light weapons and small arms.
‘Light
weapon’ is used as a generic term to describe all conventional arms that can
be carried by an individual combatant or by a lightvehicle. Small arms fall
into the sub-category consisting of automatic weapons up to 20 mm, including
submachine guns, rifles, carbines and handguns3. Small arms are defined as crew portable weapons andtherefore,
their destruction power is very low in intensity compared to that of conventional
weapons. Yet, weapons such as revolvers, rifles, explosives and those of similar
kind are the means of violence in most of the conflicts of the world. It is
a misperception that small arms only include arms that are small in size;
rather it now encompasses anti-tank weapons and rocket propelled grenades.
In
Jane’s Infantry, it has been noted that small arms embrace “all crewportable
direct fire weapons of less than 50 mm and will include a secondary capability
to defeat light armour and helicopters.”4 Studies on wound ballistics have shown that small caliber
weapons with higher muzzle velocity bullets cause large wounds and more tissue
damage due to the tumble effect. ‘Small arms’ in a classical military nomenc
lature, constitute a major chunk in the panoply of light weapons seen in internal
conflicts.5
In the World War II, the caliber of
small arms were limited to 12.7 mm. Due to advanced technology that improved
theaccuracy, lethality, rates of fire of these man-portable weapons, it is
believed that NATO extended its definition in 19836. The Dictionary of Weapons & Military Terms defines
small arms as ‘all arms, including automatic weapons, up to and including
those of .60 cal. and shotguns.’ Small-arms ammunitions are all ammunition
up to and including those of .60 cal. and all gauges of shotgun shells7.
Adjectives
such as ‘small’ and ‘light’, describing weapons barelyreveal their true destructive
capability. These weapons are major ineffect, even though minor in physical
terms.8
In addition to the traditional guns, modern variations of small arms ranging
from home-made bombs to rocket launchers are used extensively. Following are
some types of small arms and their firing capacity: Kalashnikov AK-47assault
rifle fires away a box of 30 rounds in three seconds flat with each round
lethal up to a range of half a kilometer. The American M-16 rifle tears
off a person’s arm by a single bullet and was captured by the North Vietnamese
after the fall of the government and sold reportedly in the world market.
It is reported that the Irish Republican Army (IRA) uses the weapons extensively.
The German Heckler & Loch MP5K sub-machine gun weighs only two
kg and fires at a rate of 840 rounds per minute. Another popular weapon is
the AM 180 that has a cyclic rate of fire of 1500 rounds per minute.
The Soviet made RPG 7 preferred by guerrilla and terrorist groups launches
2.25 kg grenades at speeds of almost 1,200 km/hour. The Armbrust 300
is an anti-tank weapon that emerged very recently and unlike other weapons,
it is a one-shotdisposable missile that produces no flash, no noise and no
smoke.9
During
the Cold War, big powers discussed arms control and disarmament to prevent
another total war while at the same time supplying weapons to low intensity
conflicts. The impact was not small because of the use of small arms and the
lack of high-tech weapons. Rather, the prolonged ‘little wars’ in South America
sustained themselves because of the availability of small arms and light weapons.
The picture has been similar in Asia. Insurgency wars, guerrilla warfare,
ethnicconflicts etc. were fought in different parts of the continent.
The
issue of small arms can no longer be ignored or given lessimportance. One
may, therefore, question the impact of the pervasivephenomenon of small arms
proliferation on the society as a whole,specifically on the domestic political
process in the developingcountries. Proliferation of small arms in South Asia
is no exception. Rather, in the light of current developments, it appears
that they have become an indispensable menace in the South Asian societies.
In the case of India and Pakistan relations, alongside mutual deep-rootedmistrust
and bitterness that have paved the way to nuclear arms race, there are many
simmering internal conflicts on both sides that have kept the proliferation
of small arms very much alive. The same applies to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
The Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka in their fight for autonomy have always
been heavily armed. In Bangladesh, arms were used extensively in the war of
independence of 1971. Untilrecently an insurgent movement in the Chittagong
Hill Tracts region, in the name of sub-national aspirations and autonomy of
a section of the indigenous people has been waging an insurgency campaign
against the government. In the case of Bangladesh, the use of arms has spread
more widely, to the extent that expressions of any disagreementbetween political
parties in power and in the opposition are found to be violent. The frequency
of politically motivated violence has increased over the decades with such
an ease that can be dangerous for the healthy growth of politics in any modern
state system. What is then the link between small arms proliferation and political
violence? How does it affect the wider political process itself?
The
present study is based on the hypothesis that there is widespread proliferation
of small arms in South Asia that have entered into mainstream politics of
some of the countries of the region. The study aims to find answers to how,
why, where and when arms have become closely connected with national politics.
There have been studies showing the linkage between small arms and conflict
and small arms and drug trafficking. But links between small arms and their
potentialend-use have remained rather unexplored.
In
this study, the term ‘small arms’ refers to the definition given by the Charter
of NATO. It also must be noted that throughout the study,‘proliferation of
small arms will’ refer to the illegal spread of small arms and light weapons.
The term politics will include everything that has affiliation to it, meaning
political structure, political culture, politicians, elections, voting rights
etc. Although Bangladesh remains the central concern, a general picture of
the political impact of small arms proliferation in South Asian countries
will be provided in the study withparticular reference to India, Pakistan,
and Sri Lanka where theproblem of arms proliferation is comparatively acute.
Studies
on proliferation of arms have often depended on externalvariables, such as
source, productions, types etc. Yet, it is imperative that a social scientist
looks one step deeper into the socio-psychological behavior of different personalities
and professionals in order toidentify the internal factors that make the use
of arms lucrative in a nascent democratic society. Two sets of variables have
been analyzed in this study: (a) the inflow and spread of small arms will
be identified in this paper as the independent variable; and (b) the structure
andpattern of politics in terms of political culture, political norms andbehavior,
party political process and more importantly, the process of democratic governance
as the dependent variable.
The
study is based on primary and secondary information withextensive empirical
evidence. In the first place, one local newspaper which is known to give coverage
on spread of small arms was systematically scanned for two years on a sampling
basis in order to identify the trend/pattern of the flow of arms. The vernacular
daily newspaper, The Inqilab was selected for this purpose for the
period between June 1994 and June 1996 as this newspaper gives more coverage
on the study involved.
To
supplement the media information, a field survey was conducted in two places
- Dhaka and Sylhet. The interview findings and mediacoverage on the linkage
between arms and politics constitute thesignificant part of the study. Some
interviews with key opinion-shapers, government officials and student political
activists are also reflected.
The
paper has been developed into five main chapters. Chapter two discusses the
trends and sources of the proliferation of small arms in South Asia, and its
impact on politics. Chapter three focuses on the proliferation of small arms in Bangladesh, while chapter four highlights
the impact of small arms proliferation on politics in Bangladesh. Chapter
five summarises the main arguments and puts forward some recommendations.
1.Prashant Dikshit, “Proliferation
of Small Arms and Minor Weapon” StrategicAnalysis, Vol. XVII, No. 2,
May 1994, p.188.
2.Margareta Sollenberg and Peter
Wallesteen defined major armed conflict as prolonged combat between the military
forces of two or more governments, or of one government and at least one organized
armed group, and incurring the battle-related deaths of at least 1000 people
during the entire conflict,“Armaments, Disarmament and International Security”,
SIPRI Yearbook, 1995.
3.Christopher Louise, The
Social Impacts of Light Weapons Availability and Proliferation,
Discussion Paper, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development,
March 1995, p.1.
4.Jane’s Infantry.
5.Dikshit, “Internal Conflict
and Role of Light Weapons” in Jasjit Singh (ed.) Light Weapons and International
Security, 1995, p.41.
6.Jasjit Singh, “Light Weapons
and Conflict in Southern Asia” in Ibid, p.51.
7.John Quick, Dictionary of
Weapons & Military Terms, New York, p.404.
8.Aaron Karp, “Small Arms: The
New Major Weapons”, Ploughshares Monitor, September 1995, p.17.
9.For
details on the types of small arms, see, Prashant Dikshit, op. cit.,
p.190-191.
|
