June 15, 1998

You will, when India's foes counter Pokhran by internationalising Kashmir

Mani Shankar Aiyar

Back in 1957, Nye Bevan, then the Labour Party's shadow foreign secretary, opposed unilateral nuclear disarmament because, he said, he would then have to walk into the conference room "naked". The next day, Fleet Street cartoonist Vicky had the ghost of Mahatma Gandhi whispering into Bevan's ear: "I walked into the conference room naked, Nye -- and I won."

That was when it felt great to be an Indian. We are now teetering on the edge of becoming a nuclear weapons power. The defence minister has said the logical culmination of Pokhran II is that our armed forces will go nuclear. The budget does not say that. True, Yashwant Sinha has upped defence expenditure by 14 per cent. Yet, deflated for price increases since last year, that is too small a rise to indicate any serious nuclear intent. Atomic energy, however, is up a staggering 67 per cent; so the intent is clearly to show our muscle through computer simulation rather than macho nuclearisation.

For which small mercy, thank the Lord, there is still some little time to think through what Pokhran and Chagai mean. The Government is incapable of this. The inherent contradiction between the defence minister's posturing and the finance minister's sums is compounded by the home minister's private agenda and the prime minister's secret fantasy to be the Nehru of the 21st century. The home minister says he needs weaponisation to teach the Pakis they cannot mess with him. The prime minister says nuclear weapons are meant to signal to the Pakis that we want to make love, not war.

For the first time since 1965, the Chinese and Pakistanis are united in confronting a potential Indian military threat. Our success since 1965 in keeping Kashmir off the international agenda is now in jeopardy. The Americans know that sanctions cannot much hurt a cloistered economy like ours. What will really hurt is the internationalisation of Kashmir. Since 1965, neither the UN Security Council nor P-5 has ever discussed Kashmir. Now, Pokhran and its inevitable outcome, Chagai, have firmly put Kashmir on the international agenda.

These are the stupid consequences of exploding a bomb just to keep Mamata-Samata-Jayalalitha in check. We have alarmed the world into thinking we have gone nuclear without going nuclear and without even having worked out what it means to "go nuclear".

What does it mean? By "going nuclear", do we mean crossing the threshold but going no further? That is where we are today, with a bang for our buck but virtually no real increase in defence expenditure. Does it mean getting on a nuclear escalator where every advance made by China or Pakistan is matched by going up to keep our deterrent "credible"? If so, why a unilateral "moratorium", when Abdul Kalam says we need more "strategic tests"?

Does it mean foreswearing using the bomb, as the defence minister has said? Then how can it be a deterrent? Or are there circumstances in which it will be used -- which must be made public if they are to deter our enemies and reassure our people. Also, before we deter enemies, surely we have to know who they are.

The Americans knew Japan was the enemy, so they nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Soviets said the Americans and their allies were the enemy. In fact, both sides made no bones about who the enemy was.

The Chinese directed their bomb first at Moscow and then, for a while, at Washington. The Israelis have the Arabs in their sight. Post-cold war, the US targets Libya and other such "terrorist rogues". Its last attempt at strafing Gaddhafi ended in killing his three-year-old daughter.

But we apparently want a bomb without enemies. Our prime minister tells Pakistan's: let bygones be bygones, we want to be chums. We're also cooing at China. Why then are we suddenly into a nuclear arsenal? The prime minister replies that the flow of reason and the feast of soul is qualitatively enhanced by bombs on the table. They remain unconvinced. Wouldn't you be?

Especially when Vajpayee adds that we have gone nuclear in order to end nuclear apartheid. That is like Nelson Mandela saying he needs to become a white man to stop discrimination against blacks. Vajpayee then adds that what he meant was we have gone nuclear in order to get everyone to stop being nuclear. In short, that we won't remain non-nuclear unless everyone else turns non-nuclear. Which is, of course, why the nuclear powers have refused for 10 years to look at our plan for eliminating nuclear weapons.

Yet Vajpayee says they will look at our plan if we press a nuclear trigger to their temples. On the contrary, Atalji, all you have done is provoke the Security Council into putting the trigger at our temple, behind the crown of India: Kashmir. That is the danger of a nuclear gang-bang without a strategic or foreign policy doctrine to back it up. We have to start thinking the unthinkable. Having proved to our abundant satisfaction that we can go nuclear every which way, we have to decide whether our objectives will be better served by staying at the threshold or by simply imitating the bully. I prefer Gandhi's way -- from the Mahatma to Rajiv.

The author is secretary, All-India Congress Committee.

Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd