When did Pakistan go nuclear?
In response to a request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive project, on December 18, 2012 CIA released a classified document 'The Jonathan Jay Pollard Espionage Case: A Damage Assessment'. It has been reproduced by the press in the wake of recent Iran-Israel and Pakistan - India wars. The document contains previously classified information about Jonathan Jay Pollard's activities as an Israeli mole in the US intelligence system. One of the major tasks of Jonathan Pollard was to collect information about Pakistan's nuclear programme and plutonium reprocessing facility near Islamabad.
There are ten references to Pakistan and its nuclear facilities in the document. It shows that by the 1980s the Americans knew that Pakistan had a fairly advanced nuclear programme but Islamabad's support for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan prevented them from taking any serious action. In July 1982, the Reagan administration sent former CIA deputy director General Vernon Walters to meet Gen. Zia with US intelligence reports about 'an upswing of clandestine Pakistani efforts' to produce nuclear weapons.
Confronted with the evidence, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq restated earlier promises not to develop a nuclear weapon and made pledges to avoid specific nuclear 'firebreaks'.
In 1986, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director Kenneth Adelman also warned the White House that Pakistan was secretly enhancing its nuclear capability but top levels of the US government let relations with a friendly government supersede non-proliferation goals as long as there was no public controversy.
One document claims that the Reagan administration did not even want the Pakistanis to share information with them because they feared that the truth would have made it impossible for them to certify to the Congress that Pakistan was not developing nuclear weapons. And on that certification rode the continued flow of aid to assist the Afghanistan resistance, the document adds. In the spring of 1987, senior State Department officials wrote that Pakistani nuclear development activities were proceeding apace and that Gen. Zia was approaching a threshold which he cannot cross without blatantly violating his pledge not to embarrass the President.
Jonathan Jay Pollard had been passing this information to Israel, but the question arises why and for whom Israel was accumulating this information about Pakistan's Atomic programme. The US State Department documents, declassified some years ago, throw some light on the issue as they divulge that the US had warned Pakistan in 1984 that India was planning to attack its nuclear installations in a manner similar to the Israeli attack on Iraq's Osirak facility.
This information was conveyed to Gen. Zia in a confidential letter written by President Ronald Reagan delivered by Ambassador Hinton, US Ambassador in Islamabad. Reagan's fear was based on a CIA analysis which had noted in July 1984 that some sections of the Indian government viewed a Pakistani nuclear threat imminent.
The CIA analysis also noted that an Indian attack on Pakistani nuclear facilities would almost certainly prompt retaliatory strikes against Indian nuclear facilities and probably lead to a full scale war. The US also wanted Pakistan to restrict its uranium enrichment to a maximum of five per cent, a breach of which would trigger sanctions on Pakistan. Gen. Zia is said to have sent for Gen. Akhtar and they decided to beef up security.
In reply to Reagan's letter, Gen Zia did not mention his request to limit uranium enrichment. Instead, he flatly denied Pakistan having uranium enrichment capability. 'Pakistan has no intention whatsoever to manufacture or detonate a nuclear device,' the general told the American president. Given Pakistan's awareness and full capability to defend its nuclear facilities, and to retaliate as well, India did not dare attack.
A serious crisis between India and Pakistan erupted between November 1986 and March 1987 when India launched the largest-ever military exercise in the subcontinent called Operation Brass Tack. The exercise took place a few hundred miles from India-Pakistan border. With Indian troops amassed along the border, on February 21, 1987 a Pakistan Air Force jet landed at Delhi airport with the visitor none other than Pakistan's President Zia ul Haq.
The general had flown to Delhi on the pretext of watching a cricket match between Pakistan and India in Jaipur. In an article published by India Today, Behramnam, special adviser to Rajiv Gandhi, states: 'Before departure for Chennai, General Zia, while saying goodbye to Gandhi said, 'Mr. Rajiv, you want to attack Pakistan, do it. But keep in mind that this world will forget Halaku Khan and Changez Khan and will remember only Zia and Rajiv, because this will not be a conventional war but a nuclear war, as Pakistan is now an atomic power.'
The next day, Rajiv met Zia for dinner. They spoke briefly but with definite intention of reducing tensions at the border. They agreed that in the first phase, both countries would withdraw 80,000 troops from each side. To discuss the mechanics of further withdrawals, an Indian team would visit Pakistan and carry talks. If there were still any doubts in India's mind regarding Pakistan's full nuclear capability they were subsequently dismissed by Pakistan's leading scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan. He was quoted as saying in March 1987, without mincing words that Pakistan had a nuclear bomb.
Having conveyed to India of Pakistan's nuclear capability, on March 29, 1987, while acknowledging Gen. Akhtar's role in the protection of Pakistan nuclear programme as well as his role in the covert war against Soviet forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Zia elevated him to the position of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC), the highest-rank in the Pakistan Armed Forces at that time. After the takeover in 1977, Gen. Zia had placed Pakistan's nuclear programme under military control, disbanding the previous civilian directorate, and thereafter since June, 1979, when Gen. Akhtar got appointed as ISI chief, he was a key figure in the protection of Pakistan's nuclear assets.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
A terror tag and a diplomatic turn
Just days before President Donald Trump's inauguration for the second term, a senior Pakistani diplomat briefed a group of people including experts and journalists in Islamabad. His focus was on the Pakistan-US relationship under Trump's administration. The bottom line was: Pakistan should be prepared for a tough challenge. According to the diplomat, Trump's team was surrounded by people who had little sympathy for Pakistan. Experts and those who understand Trump as well as the nature of Pakistan-US ties echoed similar sentiments. There was consensus that despite the unpredictable nature of Trump, there was little or no room for better prospects of Pakistan-US ties. On the contrary, everyone agreed that the relationship between the US and India would only deepen under President Trump's second term. But when President Trump delivered a maiden address to the US Congress, he praised Pakistan. This was some achievement given that until then he spared no one. He launched a diatribe both against friends and foes. Pakistan was the only exception, which Trump mentioned in a positive way. His praise stemmed from Pakistan's assistance in arresting one of the key masterminds of the Abbey Gate bombing in Kabul in August 2021. Muhammad Sharifullah, one of the ISIS-Khorasan operatives and according to the US was one of the facilitators of Kabul Airport attack, was apprehended on the intelligence provided by the CIA and swiftly handed over to the US. That cooperation not only earned Pakistan praise from Trump but also opened a channel of communication that would eventually lead to Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir being invited to launch at the White House in an unprecedented turn of events. When Trump applauded Pakistan at the US Congress, people were still sceptical that this bonhomie would be short-lived as Trump cannot be trusted. Questions were raised about what Pakistan had offered or was going to offer to the US in return for this cozying up approach of the US? Many people also wonder whether Pakistan would get anything in return. But what happened over the past few weeks following high-level exchanges and frequent interactions between the two countries was that Trump's praise was not mere rhetoric but now reflecting a shift in the US policy. The substantive outcome of Pakistan helping Trump to advance his domestic agenda by arresting Abbey Gate bombing facilitator was the US State Department's move to declare Balochistan Liberation Army and its suicide squad Majeed Brigade as terrorist outfit. The designation of BLA and the Majeed Brigade, as Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTO), was a major victory for Pakistan. Islamabad had long sought its listing but with little success. The US declared Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as a terrorist outfit but successive US administrations refrained from taking a similar stance against groups active in Balochistan. One of the reasons included that such groups including BLA and Majeed Brigade were targeting not just the Pakistani interests but also primarily the Chinese interests in the resource-rich Balochistan province. This in many ways probably served the agendas of those who don't want China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to succeed. That was the reason the US decision was extraordinary. The United States not only listed BLA and Majeed Brigade but also seems to be ready to extend cooperation to Pakistan to fight them. The two countries held counterterrorism dialogue, a regular feature, in Islamabad recently. The noticeable change was that for the first time BLA made it to the joint statement. Both delegations underscored the 'critical importance' of developing effective approaches to terrorist threats, singling out the BLA alongside transnational outfits. Washington lauded Islamabad's 'continued successes' in containing entities that threaten regional and global peace. Therefore, listing of BLA and Majeed Brigade is a development that carries legal, political, diplomatic, and operational implications for Pakistan, the US, and even India. First, any BLA or Majeed Brigade funds or property in the US jurisdiction are now frozen. Members and affiliates are barred from entering the US. Providing material support to the group is now a serious US federal crime, even for individuals outside the US if they have US connections. The designation makes it harder for BLA to raise funds internationally through charities, front companies, or sympathetic diaspora groups. The FTO tag makes it riskier for members to travel abroad or seek asylum in countries aligned with US counterterrorism policies. The US can now more actively share intelligence with Pakistan and allies to track, disrupt, or eliminate the group's cells. Diaspora-based sympathisers in the West could face monitoring and prosecution. If BLA finds safe havens in neighbouring states including Afghanistan, the US listing pressures those governments to take action or face reputational costs. While the designation won't end the insurgency, it can weaken its external support structure, especially for high-profile suicide attacks like those by the Majeed Brigade. Second, Pakistan has long stated that BLA is a foreign-backed terrorist group responsible for attacks in Balochistan. The US designation is an international endorsement of that position. Third, India has openly supported Baloch separatists. The US move signals that Washington is not aligning with New Delhi on this issue. Fourth, this listing highlights a warming security relationship between Pakistan and the US. Fifth, quietly, this could create discomfort in New Delhi if US counterterrorism measures start exposing any Indian contacts with Baloch separatists. It is not said publicly but the US move could also be linked to its keen interest in the untapped mines and minerals resources available in abundance in Balochistan. But security is a major challenge. Some view the US interest in mines and minerals with suspicion. The view, nevertheless, in official Pakistani circles is that the US investment in Balochistan could stabilise the situation and it may lay the bases for long-term cooperation between the two countries. The listing of BLA and Majeed Brigade is being seen in that context.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Degrees in dysfunction
Despite growing student enrollments, increased PhD production, and persistent public investment over the years, Pakistan's higher education sector continues to underperform. No Pakistani university ranks in the top 350 globally, and graduates struggle with underemployment and limited research commercialisation. At the root of this dysfunction lies a complex intersection of poor governance, political maneuvering, low returns on education, policy stagnation, and structural economic issues that fail to reward learning. Higher education in Pakistan, continues to suffer from deep-rooted structural challenges that limit its global competitiveness and national impact. At the heart of these challenges lie governance and accountability issues. Most public-sector universities still operate with outdated management models, where political interference overrides merit-based decision-making. The situation has been further complicated by the 18th Constitutional Amendment, which created a dual system of higher education regulation — one at the federal level and another at the provincial level. This has led to overlapping mandates, inconsistent policies, and a lack of coordination between key stakeholders. Governance & structural challenges A higher education institution (HEI) is subject to numerous governance bottlenecks, including the Council of Common Interests (CCI), Standing Committees of the National Assembly and Senate, the Higher Education Commission (HEC), the Federal Education Ministry, provincial education departments, provincial HECs, the chancellor (governor or chief minister of the respective province), the courts, and finally, the internal approving bodies — the Senate or syndicate or both of the HEI. For instance, when a public HEI seeks to revise student fees in light of the incessant increase in establishment charges (payroll) resulting from annual BPS faculty salary hikes, the Senate and syndicate — the strategic decision-making bodies, often composed of majorly ex-officio members — block the move due to concerns over political capital depreciation. Similarly, many important decisions, especially the commercialisation of idle assets or the investment (if, fortunately, there are funds available) in profit-oriented but risky opportunities, such as mutual funds, also suffer due to this overreach. This creates a vicious cycle: political interference obstructs much-needed reforms, increasing dependence on the government's exchequer, which in turn invites further political interference. Further, governing boards are often constituted through non-transparent nominations without any defined eligibility criteria, and they lack representation from key professional sectors such as finance, law, or technology. The absence of clearly defined performance evaluation frameworks for both the vice chancellor and statutory bodies has left many universities in a state of administrative paralysis. Internal audit functions are largely nonexistent and, where they do exist, they lack independence and remain directly answerable to the vice chancellor. Chronic underinvestment, stagnant funding Financially, over the years, the Higher Education Commission's budget rose from 47.5 billion rupees in 2014–15 to 65 billion rupees in 2018–19, after which it remained stagnant. However, this stagnation, combined with currency devaluation, has reduced its value to nearly half in dollar terms, from around 470 million dollars to 230 million dollars. This financial squeeze reflects the chronic underinvestment in education overall and the government's misplaced priorities. From July to March, only 0.8% of the GDP was spent on education, according to the Economic Survey of Pakistan 2024-25. Far below UNESCO's recommended benchmark of 4–6%, even after accounting for provincial expenditures. Within the higher education sector, HEC's performance-based funding to HEIs remains minimal compared to base and need-based grants, leaving faculty and institutions with little incentive to strive for excellence beyond mandatory benchmarks. Unlike in the US or China, where universities serve as hubs for startups and scientific advancement, Pakistan's institutions have produced no Nobel laureates or unicorn startups. Offices of research, innovation and commercializalisation (ORICs) and business incubation centres (BICs. exist, but due to limited capacity and lack of attention from both HEIs and the government, commercialisation efforts rarely bear fruit. Yet this is vital, not only for the financial sustainability of HEIs and easing the government's strained fiscal space, but also for fostering innovation and broader economic prosperity. Research & employability gaps Despite a significant rise in the number of PhDs produced (from 287 in 2003 to 3,489 in 2024) and improvements in laboratory infrastructure, Pakistan has failed to fully leverage its research potential. While academic output has increased in both volume and citation quality, it is largely driven by individual incentives, particularly the need for faculty to meet promotion criteria, rather than by a commitment to solving real-world problems or addressing national priorities. Product-oriented research remains largely absent. This reflects flaws in regulatory policies, which prioritise publication counts over innovation, research commercialisation, industry linkages, pedagogical quality, and the meaningful academic presence of teachers. The result is a race for published papers, often at the expense of impactful research and teaching. From a student's perspective, there's a glaring gap between what the job market demands (practical, skill-based competencies) and what universities continue to teach, which remains largely theoretical. Processes like degree attestation are sluggish and bureaucratic. As noted earlier, poor pedagogy—focused more on churning out research papers than on actual teaching—compounds the issue. Grievance mechanisms, where they exist, are largely symbolic and often fail to function effectively. Thousands of graduates each year find themselves underemployed or unemployable due to a mismatch between their academic training and the evolving demands of industry. Outdated curricula rooted in rote memorisation continue to dominate classrooms, with little emphasis on critical thinking, analytical reasoning, or hands-on experience. There is an urgent need to overhaul academic programs to reflect competency-based education models. Internships, project-based learning, and interdisciplinary exposure should be core components of university life to ensure that students are better equipped to contribute to the economy and society upon graduation. With the recent economic turmoil, households see little incentive to invest in higher education, given the opportunity cost, when the job market does not value it. This is not a reflection of poor effort by students but rather a structural failure of the economy to absorb skilled labour. Our higher education faces a cycle of underperformance driven by poor governance, underused research, outdated curricula, inequitable access, and much more. Disillusionment with education stems from real economic and institutional failures, not misplaced expectations. The solution isn't merely to spend more, but to invest more strategically, aligning resources with local needs and long-term national priorities. Charting the path to effective higher education Reparation necessitates firstly, to ensure meaningful autonomy for universities. Universities must be empowered to revise fees, design market-aligned programs, and recruit faculty without political interference. The government should prioritise repairing and strengthening existing large, underperforming institutions—rather than churning out new universities for rhetorical or political gains. Without such autonomy and a focus on institutional consolidation, even the most well-crafted policies cannot be implemented effectively. Secondly, a shift toward performance-based funding is needed. Rather than relying solely on base grants – or worst, mere whims – a significant portion of public funding should be tied to measurable outcomes, such as graduate employability, research commercialisation, innovation output, and teaching quality, not just enrollment figures. Faculty standards must be raised and teaching capacity enhanced. Recruitment criteria must be strengthened, regular pedagogical training institutionalised, and competitive salaries offered to attract and retain high-performing faculty. Promotion criteria should move beyond paper publication counts to also reflect classroom impact and real-world relevance. Regulator must actively enforce these standards. Academic programs should be with market needs. The Academic Council must actively incorporate market research to align courses with industry needs, without the looming fear of the regulator's sword. ORICs and BICs should be revitalised to translate curricular outcomes into commercially viable products. Curricula must prioritise critical thinking, applied learning, and digital skills. Stronger industry linkages, mandatory internships, and project-based learning are essential to make graduates job-ready and economically relevant. Local governments should be empowered to reduce regional disparities. Provincial and district administrations should be equipped with reliable data systems, timely funding, and real administrative and fiscal autonomy. This will allow them to craft localised solutions with agility, responsiveness, and accountability. Structural governance reform need to be implemented. University governance must be separated from management. Independent boards, free from political influence, should appoint vice-chancellors based on leadership merit. A national governance code, modelled after corporate standards, must enforce transparency, annual audits, and board accountability. Clear eligibility criteria for key positions, along with key performance indicators (KPI) based performance evaluation mechanisms for each member of strategic committees as well as for the vice chancellor, should be mandated. These evaluations should be conducted by an independent third party to ensure objectivity and credibility. It is imperative to prioritise equity and inclusion, especially for women. Education policy must centre on gender and geographic inclusion. This requires scholarships, safe transport options, and secure campuses for female students; digital access in rural areas; and targeted faculty recruitment for underdeveloped regions. Prioritising female education will unlock not only individual opportunity but also national productivity. Reform, not rhetoric, is the only sustainable path forward. Furqan Ali is a Peshawar-based researcher who works in the financial sector. He can be reached at alifurqan647@ Rabia Khan is an Islamabad-based writer and researcher focusing on national and international affairs All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the authors.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Israeli military forces Palestinians' relocation to southern Gaza
Palestinians look at aid packages that are airdropped over Gaza, in Gaza City, August 8, 2025. REUTERS Gaza residents will be provided with tents and other shelter equipment starting from Sunday ahead of relocating them from combat zones to the south of the enclave "to ensure their safety," the Israeli military said on Saturday. This comes days after Israel said it intended to launch a new offensive to seize control of northern Gaza City, the enclave's largest urban centre, in a plan that raised international alarm over the fate of the demolished strip, home to about 2.2 million people. #عاجل 🔴 بناء على توجيهات المستوى السياسي وفي اطار تحضيرات جيش الدفاع لنقل السكان المدنيين من مناطق القتال إلى جنوب قطاع عزة حفاظا على أمنهم، سيتم اعتبارا من يوم الغد (الأحد) تجديد توفير الخيم ومعدات المأوى لسكان القطاع. ⭕️سيتم نقل المعدات عن طريق معبر كيرم شالوم بواسطة الأمم… — افيخاي ادرعي (@AvichayAdraee) August 16, 2025 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Sunday said that before launching the offensive, the civilian population will be evacuated to what he described as "safe zones" from Gaza City, which he called Hamas' last stronghold. The shelter equipment will be transferred via the Kerem Shalom crossing in southern Gaza by the United Nations and other international relief organisations after being inspected by defence ministry personnel, the military said. A spokesperson for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs expressed concern over Israel's plans to relocate people to southern Gaza saying it would only increase suffering. But the UN body welcomed Israel's recognition that shelter is a desperate need and that tents and other shelter equipment will be allowed again into Gaza. "The UN and its partners will seize the opportunity this opens," the spokesperson said. The UN warned on Thursday that thousands of families already enduring appalling humanitarian conditions could be pushed over the edge if the Gaza City plan moves ahead. Palestinian and United Nations officials have said no place in the enclave is safe, including areas in southern Gaza where Israel has been ordering residents to move to. More than 20 Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza, Al Jazeera reported citing medical sources. Read More: 39 killed in Gaza as Israel expands offensive The military declined to comment when asked whether the shelter equipment was intended for Gaza City's population estimated at around one million people presently, and whether the site to which they will be relocated in southern Gaza would be the area of Rafah, which borders Egypt. Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that the plans for the new offensive were still being formulated. The Palestinian militant faction Islamic Jihad, an ally of Hamas, said that the military's announcement "as part of its brutal attack to occupy Gaza City, is a blatant and brazen mockery of international conventions." However, Israeli forces have already increased operations on the outskirts of Gaza City over the past week. Residents in the neighbourhoods of Zeitoun and Shejaia have reported heavy Israeli aerial and tank fire. Residents there have also reported explosions throughout the day, resulting from Israeli tank shelling against homes in the eastern parts of the neighbourhood. The Israeli military on Friday said that it had begun a new operation in Zeitoun to locate explosives, destroy tunnels and kill militants in the area. Israel's war in Gaza The war, now in its 21st month, has killed more than 61,776 Palestinians and wounded 154,906, according to Gazan health authorities. Most of the victims are reported to be women and children. Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel is also facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice over its conduct in Gaza.
