ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Special/ Sameer Jalnapurkar

BJP dangerously out of touch with reality

Citizens and well-wishers of India have over the past few weeks been watching with increasing concern the manner in which the present government has been playing dangerous games with the interests of the Indian people.

No, I am not a going to argue that India does not need any nukes, nor am I going to claim that India does not face any serious threats to its security. But what needs to be evaluated is whether the course on which the BJP-lead government is taking the country will do anything to make life safer for India's people.

The first salvo in the current series of events was fired by our irrepressible George Fernandes, who declared publicly that China was the greatest threat to India. I do not disagree with him; China's nuclear and missile technology transfers to Pakistan are of great concern to India, and should be so. India cannot but be suspicious of Chinese intentions, and needs to take appropriate measures to be prepared. But this is not the sort of thing that the Indian defence minister should be shouting from the rooftops.

Anybody with an elementary understanding of strategy will appreciate that you do not go about putting your enemies on high alert and provoking them into taking measures against you. Fernandes claims that the people should be taken into confidence, and that such discussions should be conducted publicly. It may be that such a policy worked for Mr Fernandes when he was a trade union leader. But international diplomacy is not the same as organising a strike. Of course, Mr Fernandes's statement has been taken note of by newspapers in China, and read by millions of Chinese readers, who now believe that India is seeking a quarrel with China.

Barely had this uproar died down, when there burst upon us the twin explosions of the first and second rounds of tests. We are all proud of our scientists, who have been able to achieve a very difficult task despite the embargoes imposed by other countries. But the question that needs to be asked is: Exactly how have these tests advanced the cause of Indian security? We have been told that our scientists have acquired the ability to perform sub-critical tests. So would sub-critical tests have sufficed? Failing that would it have been possible to quietly conduct low-yield tests?

Some may say that clandestinely conducting low yield tests would not have been morally right. But the fact is that India, not being a signatory to the CTBT, is fully entitled to conduct such tests and is under no obligation to announce them publicly. India currently does not have the missile systems to deliver nuclear payloads to targets deep inside China. Thus we are in a situation where we have succeeded in alarming the world considerably with our tests, but as yet do not have adequate means to operationalise the nuclear weapons. Instead of following the policy 'speak softly and carry a big stick', we seem to be shouting loudly, and carrying only a small stick.

One argument for conducting these big tests with such great fanfare would be that these tests send a message to Pakistan and China that India has a credible deterrent. But these countries have been quite aware of the fact that India has a nuclear deterrent. If necessary, they could have been quietly informed that they cannot afford to threaten India with nuclear weapons. If anything, these tests have actually reduced India's security. China is bound to step up its co-operation with Pakistan, and is likely to target even more of its arsenal towards India.

If the tests do nothing to enhance Indian security, then why were they conducted at all? To understand this, one needs to try to understand the thought processes of the BJP top brass. Especially revealing is Mr Vajpayee's comment that he had been advocating the cause of India going nuclear for well over four decades. It appears that his thinking on nuclear weapons has not undergone much evolution in the past forty years. He is used to a world order in which possession of nuclear weapons has been the determinant of a country's status. The mentality seems to be: we are going to explode the big bomb, and then join the big boys in their exclusive club.

The fact is that this thinking is hopelessly out of date. It is not that nuclear weapons do not have their place: They certainly do deter wars; and when a nation faces an ultimate existential threat, it is to nukes that it must turn. But in today's world possession of nukes no longer confers prestige or respect. It is the economic strength of a nation that really matters.

Another major reason for the BJP's decision is the consideration that nuclear capability would give Indians a sense of pride and self-confidence. The consequent partisan political benefits could also not have been unwelcome. It is true that most Indians have been strongly supportive of the tests. The reason for this support is a deep sense frustration that has been building up because of the feeling that successive governments have been unable to deal with the growing internal terrorism and external threats that confront India. Yet this nuke induced euphoria is unlikely to last long, given the other pressing problems like poverty, lack of sanitation, drinking water and decent housing that the vast majority of the people in India face. The sanctions that have been announced by the US, Japan and others are bound to further exacerberate the troubles of the people.

In any case, international diplomacy is a high-stakes endeavour that needs to be conducted in a cool and sober manner. Such momentous decisions cannot be made for the sake of whipping up an emotional reaction amongst the Indian people.

Just look at Israel. It is a nuclear capable state, but it does not see any need to go around boastfully advertising this fact. It has achieved considerable economic success, and its citizens do not need the bomb to prop up their self-esteem.

What has made matters worse for India is the singularly clumsy handling of the press by Vajpayee and his team. What they may not have realised is that they were under intense international media scrutiny, and that every gaffe would have repercussions. Vajpayee's assertion that India can make a 'big bomb' sounded boastful and was quite uncalled for. Similarly his statement that 'we will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if attacked' set alarm bells ringing, and was duly taken note of in Chinese newspapers.

Much more serious, however, is the evidence that Mr Vajpayee and his coterie have not given any serious thought to the complex issues associated with nuclear weaponisation, and India's nuclear policy. According to AP news reports, in the original release of the transcripts of Mr Vajpayee's interview to India Today, he had declared that the command and control system for the nuclear weapons was in place. Yet later, a new version was released in which this remark had been deleted. This confusion was duly reported in the Western press. Also, Mr Vajpayee has not made any declarations on a 'no first use' policy; yet Mr Advani spoke about it in a recent statement.

Yet another regrettable gaffe has been so called 'code' which the magazine Newsweek reports was used to confirm the successful completion of the tests: 'The Whitehouse has collapsed'. This is bound to be regarded as quite distasteful by the US.

It has been quite disturbing to hear of the manner in which the BJP and its affiliates organised celebrations in the aftermath of the tests. The BJP cadre has been behaving in an immature and jingoistic manner -- dancing on the streets, bursting firecrackers and so on. Mr Vajpayee also has been appearing with garlands around his neck. The VHP is apparently planning to construct a temple at Pokharan. Do these guys realise what the horrors of a nuclear holocaust are? Even if going nuclear is necessary for India, it is a step fraught with serious implications; it is not something to celebrate by dancing on the streets.

Also apalling has been the cavalier manner in which the government has responded to the villagers from near the test site who have had to suffer from the radiation fallout. Mr Vajpayee declared that no radioactivity was found during scientific testing and analysis but added: "Even then if there had been any trouble, then we should learn to sacrifice as national security is above all considerations.'' Mr Vajpayee is happy to go strutting around with garlands round his neck, but does not mind asking the poor villagers to pay the price.

It seems that each day somebody in the government causes turmoil with some thoughtless statement. Lately Mr Advani has been warning the Pakistanis of 'costly' consequences if they failed to 'roll back their anti-India policy'. Coming as it did just days after India had tested its H-bomb, the consternation that this remark caused in the international media is understandable.

As if that was not enough, George Fernandes again publicly broadcasted in Bombay his assessment of China as India's greatest threat. The following day, Mr Advani was at it again: India would deal with 'in a pro-active manner' with 'any further misadventure' on Indian territory, he said. Shortly thereafter, another minister, Mr Madanlal Khurana, declared that India was ready fight a fourth war with Pakistan!

Whether these statements are justified or not is not the issue; what is clear is making such public statements has achieved absolutely nothing tangible for India. Their only effect has been to vitiate the atmosphere further and get an enormous amount of bad publicity for India. The US reacted sharply to Advani, saying that 'India is foolishly and dangerously increasing tensions with its neighbours and is indifferent to world opinion'. Mr Advani has caused further damage to the already precarious Indian position in the US. That too at a time when it seemed that the worst was over and that many were beginning to understand the Indian point of view.

In the circumstances it would be reasonable for an observer to conclude that India has fallen into the clutches of a jingoistic group which is bent upon reckless adventurism and has little or no understanding of how to protect their country's interests. Although the much maligned Gujral government was weak, chaotic and dependent for its survival on corrupt Congress and regional politicians, one must say that in Mr Gujral we had a prudent and thoughtful PM.

The pressing question that is on everybody's mind is: What is going to happen now? First of all, it is not clear that the BJP-led government still enjoys a majority. Mr Badal of the Akali Dal has already declared his unhappiness with the perilous course that this government has taken. Mr Chandrababu Naidu of the Telugu Desam too will not feel too pleased about the sanctions, as his state has been critically dependent on international funds for development projects. The fragile coalition government has depended on the support of both these allies. So it may be that this government will be out in the next few weeks.

If there is going to be a new government, it will probably be a Congress-lead government -- and Sharad Pawar is a likely candidate for the PM's post. The new Congress-led government would probably be corrupt and venal. Yet in the present circumstances a corrupt and venal government led by Mr Pawar may be a safer option than the present set-up.

Irrespective of whether there is a new government or not, India should seriously consider signing the CTBT. It was only about a week after the tests that the government announced its intention of negotiating with the international community over the CTBT. If this had been announced soon after the tests, the negative fallout could have been lessened.

The fact that it took a week for the government to say this only confirms that the government rushed into the tests without having given any thought to the repurcussions and India's strategy of dealing with them. Even now, there seems to be confusion in the government over what India's precise stand is. The government should be warned that the rest of the world is unlikely to be very patient with India's muddled and hesitant approach.

It has been reported that India already has the capability to conduct subcritical tests. Thus India will be able to maintain its nuclear readiness without setting off any nuclear blasts. It has been the Indian stand so far that India will not sign the CTBT as it does nothing to reduce the arsenals of the established nuclear powers. But does this stand really make sense? There were only two countries which voted with India against the CTBT. During the CTBT negotiations, India battled almost singlehandedly against the intense pressure applied by the US and others. If other countries are not willing to speak up for their own rights, should India make itself a martyr for their sake?

In any case, it may be possible within the CTBT framework to ensure the security of those countries that do not have nuclear weapons and are not covered by treaties with nuclear powers. One of the measures that India could possibly advocate is the establishment of a nuclear-capable force under UN control whose job would be to deter countries that are considering first strikes against others.

Some observers in India were surprised by the vehemence of the Western reaction to the Indian tests. They expected that the West would keep in mind India's history of democracy and responsible behaviour. The reaction from the West, though very negative, should not be interpreted as hostility towards India.

Rather, it reflects the fear the Western nations have of nuclear proliferation. In their view, India's action threatens to jeopardise the whole security framework that they had so painstakingly built up over the past thirty years or so. They are concerned that if today India goes nuclear, tomorrow it could be the turn of Libya or North Korea.

The Indian establishment should realise, that although the CTBT does suffer from flaws, it has its plus points too. A world with fewer nuclear weapons states is indeed a safer world (provided, of course, that there are safeguards for non-nuclear states). It should be possible to work towards remedying the deficiencies of the CTBT from inside it, rather than from outside it. The world is rather weary of India constantly playing the role of a preachy and impractical gadfly. If Indian interests are not compromised by the CTBT, India should adopt a constructive attitude towards it.

The possibility that some good might eventually result from the decision taken by India cannot be ruled out. Perhaps it may result in some concrete provisions being made to address the security concerns of non-nuclear states. Perhaps the five established nuclear powers will agree to discuss disarmament. We can only await the verdict of history. But what is clear is that India has certainly embarked on a dangerous course without having adequately thought things through.

Sameer Jalnapurkar is at the University of California at Berkeley.

The Rediff Special

Tell us what you think of this feature