Read the passage to answer the questions that follows passage.
Passage III:

“Since wars begin in the minds of men,” so runs the historic UNESCO Preamble, “It is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.” Wars erupt out when the minds of menare inflamed, when the human mindis blinded and wounded, succumbsto frustration and self-negation. Waris the transference ofthis self-negation into the other-negation. The three Indo-Pak wars and the persisting will to terrorise have emanated from this sawage instinct of other-negationthatis the legacy of the partition carnage and its still-bleeding and_unhealed wound,
Truncated from its eastern wing in 1971, Pakistan ever since has suffered from a sense of total existential self-negation. Plus the scars left by the twopreviously lost wars to India and Kargil fill the Army and the Pakistan pysche with a seething urge to revenge: that Indian has to
be negated, destroyed — in a deep psychological sense, another Hiroshima in the subcontinent is imaginable and possible. Terrorism in Kashmir springs from such deep negating existential grounds. Like the former Soviet Union, Pakistan came into beingas a result of a grand delusion and
massive perversion of reality — the so called two-nation theory. Like the former Soviet Union, it stand in danger of crumbling unless it modifies its reality perception and comesto terms with its post-Bangladesh identity within the prevailing subcontinental equation. Failing this, Pakistan is bound to break up, nudging the region to a nuclear nightmare, including, possible South Asian Hiroshimas. With‘hotpursuits’ and ‘surgical operations’ freely making rounds amongthepolicy elite and the public at large, the national atmosphere looks ominously charged. “On the
brink,” headlines The Week adding, “As men and machines are quickly positioned by India and Pakistan, the threat of war looms real.” To which Gen. Musharraf counters, “If any war is thrust on Pakistan, Pakistan’s armed forces and the 140 million people of Pakistan are fully prepared to faceall consequences with all their might.” According to Indian Express, “Pakistan has deployed medium rangeballistic missile batteries (MRBBs) along the Line of Control (LOC) near Jammu and Poonch sectors in a action that will further escalate the tension between the two countries.”
AndIndia’s Defence Minister ups the ante, “We could take a (nuclear) strike, survive and then hit back, Pakistan would be finished.” (Hindustan Times, December 30, 2001). Mr. Fernandes’s formulation is certainly a tactical super shot, even a strategical super hit in as much as this is
the very logic of India’s ‘No-first-stike’ doctrine. The Defence Minister obviously has no idea of the ethical, phenomeno logical implications of abandoning chunks of the Indian population to ransom for potential Hiroshimas and then ‘finishing’ the neighbouring country of 140 in
what could be nothing short of an Armageddon. Forget these horrendous scenarios. But does this not repudiate the grain of truth for which India’s civilisation stood for and vindicated across the untold millennia ofits history? Yet, Mr. Fernandes, the pacifist and Gandhian, is no
warmonger. As Defence Minister he had to react at a level with the Pakistanis, with their proclivity to drop the nuclear speak whenever that suited them, could have.