May 18, 1998

Why pussy cats can't exercise the nuclear option.

Swapan Dasgupta

By the night of May 4, the day China accused George Fernandes of having "seriously sabotaged the favourable atmosphere for improving bilateral relations", Delhi's grapevine was thick with "reliable information" that Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was looking for a new defence minister. The next day, the patent holder of an eponymous doctrine followed the Congress in denouncing George as an "adventurist" bent on creating a "psychosis". To ram home the point, an unnamed source in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) told The Statesman thatGeorge's views "are not a reflection of the considered views of the Government".

Another faux pas, sniggered the sceptics. Unsuitable minister, tut-tutted the Chanakyapuri seminar circuit. A blundering Government, gloated the editorial classes. Barely 60 days old and two quick wickets down, the purpose behind the loud appeal against George was served. The Vajpayee Government was unnerved and its image of bumbling incompetence bolstered.

It is a strange paradox. China encourages insurgent movements along our borders, supplies Pakistan with missile technology for use against India, conducts nuclear tests with impunity, repeatedly embarrasses visiting Indian dignitaries and stalls negotiations on the border dispute. Yet, when a diligent minister berates the "carelessness and casual attitude" of the political class to national security and bluntly describes China as a "potential" threat, he is called a maverick. He is attacked for his "chauvinism" by a former prime minister who loved turning the other cheek. The "patriotic" left demands his resignation because he has offended Beijing. A Government committed to "exercis(ing) the option to induct nuclear weapons", falters at the first hurdle of Chinese displeasure. If a Government is incapable of calling a spade a spade, how will it cope with the growing pressure to abandon its nuclear option? What use is the strategic review if an option is prejudged? A weak Government, a Government incapable of supplying one-way tickets to seven lame-duck ambassadors, can hardly be expected to epitomise national resurgence.

That is what it seems on the surface. But there is another dimension. The opprobrium attached to George's Krishna Menon lecture and his Home TV interview wasn't merely an outcome of the China-can-never-do-any-wrong lobby's indignation. Or even the anti-nuclear lobby's own hidden agenda. It is, for example, curious that senior officials of Vajpayee's own Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) were most incensed by George's assertions. Did they inspire the reactions from the Congress? Are they simultaneously briefing the man tipped to head the MEA's parliamentary consultative committee, whose main intention is to run a parallel ministry? These are questions that only Vajpayee is in a position to answer. Yet, he chooses not to even address them.

In "fixing" George, the lobbyists have won. First, they have publicly demonstrated that the PMO does not have a mind of its own. Second, by orchestrating a reaction -- even at the cost of undermining the country's defence minister at the behest of Beijing -- they have signalled that boldness and radicalism are unwelcome. That it is best to stick to the straight and narrow. In other words, do nothing and be a prisoner of a politicised bureaucracy. If the prime minister doesn't learn from this controversy, he might as well roll out the red carpet for Sonia Gandhi.

Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd