|
|
|
|
|
Halfway
House India needs better than a tentative nuclear doctrine from a tentative NSAB.
The doctrine flows from the theory of deterrence that sees mutual possession of nuclear weapons as a disincentive for war. This principle governed the Cold War. India has rejected, for instance, the Maoist school that actually contemplated engaging and being an aggressor in a nuclear conflict. While the theory of deterrence is eminently sensible, the problem is the NSAB appears to suggest that India borrow the western nuclear strategy as well. This calls for a platform spread across the triad of aircraft, land-based rocket launchers and submarines. It also requires a formidably complex command and control mechanism that includes an array of satellite and electronic systems. This mechanism is aimed at preventing a rogue nuclear strike or plain error; it is also prohibitively expensive. Further, it implies a constant state of readiness for nuclear weaponry. It ignores the concept of "de-alerting" -- of storing nuclear device and missile separately though in proximity so as to pre-empt any impetuous action. Ironically it was India that took the proposal for de-alerting to the un in 1998. There are other grey areas too that could do with clarification. India's nuclear bomb was an indigenous achievement. Its deployment policy should similarly trust its instincts. Qualitya and Quota
At the root of the problem is a mindset that sees the reservation system as either a gigantic patronage network or an end in itself or both. To set aside a specified segment of educational or employment opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged sections is a short-term mechanism to redress social inequity. As recent experience has indicated, it is sometimes governed by a notional sense of equality rather than by real economics. Communities like the Yadavs and Kurmis were among the beneficiaries of the Green Revolution. For them Mandal was more about status than wealth creation. Of course, lower down in India's traditional caste hierarchy the Dalits have seen the quota system unleash a genuine revolution. Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between special privileges for a poor, tribal child whose parents would find it difficult to send him to primary school and virtually ensured admission for a doctor who seeks an advanced degree in surgery. Whatever politicians and other congenital pessimists may say, merit and egalitarianism can yet be reconciled. The Supreme Court has only reminded India of that. |
||||
| Top |
 © Living Media India Ltd |
To
ask why the BJP-led government has released the draft nuclear doctrine framed by the
National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) before the elections is to get the wrong end of
the stick. The government, in fact, should be pulled up for doing precious little in the
14 months since the Pokhran II tests. It must be pointed out though that this work of an
NSAB comprising f time-servers and imported wisdom specialists can be bettered. The
doctrine only outlines India's broad nuclear philosophy. It spells out the parameters
within which nuclear weapons will be used. A more detailed nuclear strategy will establish
exactly how a hypothetical nuclear strike is to take place: the delivery system, the
target, the time frame for activation. 
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court
nullified the Uttar Pradesh Post-Graduate Medical Education Act, which reduced the
qualifying marks for SC, ST and OBC candidates from 35 to 20 per cent. It did likewise to
a Madhya Pradesh government order that set ridiculously low qualifying standards -- STs 15
per cent, SCs 20 per cent, OBCs 40 per cent -- for higher educational institutions. The
court was quite emphatic: such populism is "contrary to the national interest".
In any rational society, this would have been accepted as perfectly straightforward logic.
In India, home to pseudo-intellectuals whose idea of gainful employment is unearthing
innuendoes where none exists, the ruling is being interpreted as detrimental to social
justice.