Review of Indian nuclear doctrine?

The Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo is anathema to the Chinese because they fail to see it as a war memorial that every country has. It is a different story that in India the war memorial in New Delhi (India Gate) was built by the British in memory of the 90,000 Indian soldiers martyred in World War I fighting for the British albeit post Independence the convoluted political dispensation has failed to erect another one to immortalized the hundreds of military personnel that have laid down their lives to keep the country secure.

Coming back to the Yasukuni Shrine, first time visitors are confronted by a gigantic mirror, behind which lie the ashes of the martyrs. The mirror makes you reflect deeply about yourself. The Chinese may not know about the mirror for a Chinese national entering Yasukuni Shrine would be considered traitor by the Chinese Communist Party but then there is no embargo on westerners.

This preamble is necessary because there appears to be a need for some western authors and think tanks to have their walls replaced with mirrors. Glass would not do because they have become immune to the cliché “those who live in glass houses do not hurl stones at others”. Mirrors may make them take a hard look at themselves and reflect upon what their countries have been up to.

Persistent calls by some of them for India to continue giving concessions to Pakistan in return to terrorism and mayhem by the latter is simply galling. If orchestration to make India withdraw from its own territory in Siachen despite grave strategic disadvantage has failed, the next step is already being progressed under the dubious title of ‘Stabilization of LoC’. How some of the western blue eyed boys despite exposure in their dubious role in recommending withdrawal from Siachen have found their way into the latter deliberations too is intriguing.

The format for these deliberations remains the same as earlier – meet in locales abroad but not in India so that the Indian public does not get the whiff of what is cooking. So the obvious aim is to go for open borders along the LoC in conjunction similar arrangements along the Pak-Afghan border so that Pakistan can spread terrorism unchecked, which obviously suits western interests. That is why despite what Pakistan has done to inflict casualties on the US-NATO led ISAF in Afghanistan, full support to Pakistani Military continues to be provided despite the military holding Pakistan’s democracy to ransom and not letting go control of the country’s foreign policy.

Reportedly, underhand arrangement is already in place for Pakistan Taliban to have free run into Afghanistan but is the same being engineered for the Indo-Pak border too – for LeT, JeM and allied schmuck to surge across freely? The question here is  does it or does it not suit the west to plunge the Sub Continent into the same chaos like the Middle East? Arms economy apart, would it not help stymie the rise of the Asian Century?

But this one is about the nuclear doctrine of India. A mere mention for the need to review the doctrine in the election manifesto of a political party has caused some in the west to jump through the roof. The brouhaha is understandably more because the manifesto happens to be that of the BJP, a party that has projected Mr Narendra Modi as its Prime Minister candidate. The main danger felt is that India may become a strong country under him and not play the game of the west. And what does the west want of India if not: a weak nation that is pliable; a weak coalition whose Prime Minister only tells the US President we are a weak country so please help us; access to Indian markets; cooperation in Indo-Pacific waters, and the like. If that is not the case, please explain what has been done to dispel line of thought? Has the US given any worthwhile technology to India despite all the hype? Is the west bothered if India loses territory along the Himalayas? Surely if the US eyes India as a friend in its Asia Pivot, cooperation cannot be restricted to the sea alone. How about recognizing ‘one India’ and condemning China’s spurious claims to say Arunachal Pradesh for starters?

But let us get back to this business of reviewing the nuclear doctrine of India. What exactly does the BJP manifesto say? All it says is “to study in detail India’s nuclear doctrine, and review and update it, to make it relevant to challenges of current times”. So what is wrong with a review but the noise being made is that as if Mr Narendra Modi as PM will fire off a nuke across the borders at the first available opportunity. Apparently western protégés in India too imbued the same qualities in thinking that any response to deep Chinese intrusions inside India, even when not leading to physical contact, would result into massive cyber strikes and nuclear war. As for review of any doctrine, especially conflict related including nuclear, should this not be a matter of routine? Has that US not been forced to abandon ‘boots on ground’ from its foreign doctrine post Iraq and Afghanistan? It is a different issue that the ‘boots on ground’ has been replaced with ‘boots by proxy’ under cover of ambiguity and that Pakistan with its considerable terror industry will continue to be a supplier of proxies for subtle manipulation in Afghanistan region and shall we also say the Sub Continent. But then why should India not review its nuclear doctrine?

Can those who are against India “reviewing” its nuclear doctrine answer the following: first, how do you distinguish between an incoming conventional and nuclear missile; second, how do you view the Chinese concept of mass missile attack, some of which may have mix of conventional, nuclear, electro-magnetic; third, why is China contemplating switch from NFU to first use; fourth, what of the mass induction of TNWs in Pakistan Army; fifth, what changes in NBC warfare are envisaged because of miniaturization; sixth, what about CBRN strikes using proxies within the target country (like Sarin attacks in Syria?); and seventh, does the US and many others not follow the doctrine of ‘Launch on Warning’ right from the Cold war days? So if India is talking of reviewing its nuclear doctrine why is the west straightaway construing it as switch to ‘first use’.

In matters of NBC, it can hardly be denied that India has displayed far more maturity than others. The fact of the matter is that the US: one, nuked Hiroshima for experimenting when Japan was already devastated through conventional bombing; two, nuked Hiroshima in immediate aftermath as a second experiment that in gross disregard to human lives; three, ignored supply of Silkworm missiles by China to Saudi Arabia; four, looked away as China proliferated nuclear technology to Pakistan and North Korea, even when China tested first Pakistani nuke on Chinese soil; five, ignored Pakistan-North Korea missile and nuclear cooperation; six, ignored Pakistan undertaking nuclear proliferation; and seven, subjected US nationals to depleted uranium (DU) tests that will affect generations, amongst many other of what can be classified misdemeanors. Besides, what are the concerns about increasing nuclear instability in Pakistan due to proliferation of TNWs and reports of nukes kept packed and ready to be shipped to Saudi Arabia in event of Iran going nuclear?

So, it is no crime for India to review its nuclear doctrine in backdrop of the security environment, securing the nation’s interests and deterring the predations of Pakistan and China, which cannot be based purely on conventional forces. In fact, such a review is warranted periodically in keeping with ground realities. It is reiterated that review does not mean a switch to declared first use but 21st Century is witnessing ‘dirty war’ and so, leave it to the political authority to take a decision in face of grave danger to the nation.

More importantly despite TNWs having come to Corps level in Pakistani Army, the control remains with the political authority. Pakistani Army is no fool to let go nukes at India because it is aware of the Indian response. Similarly, Pakistani red lines are known to India. So the west actually needs to quit hollering about a nuclear war on the Sub Continent. India is a mature country and Pakistan has managed to successfully double time the west all these years. Besides, Pakistan’s nuclear bluff is not taken seriously in India.  Getting back to the mirror, the west needs to seriously review its conduct in destabilizing regions in the hope that mainland US and EU will be spared from the repercussions. It is only a matter of time.

But finally let us get to the main fear that is gripping the west, and that is of a strong India resolving issues with China and both joining hands, what with Russia moving to partly reverse machinations of the west in breaking up the Soviet Union, with China watching the US rebalance from Asia Pacific to Asia to Europe. The nuclear doctrine bogey is perhaps being raised to target Mr Narendra Modi as an adjunct to much propaganda what with the Economist and Guardian unleashing misinformation. It is understandable that the west wants India to continue with a supple dispensation, kowtowing to bidding of the west. But it is time to face ground realities. India is rising and should be expected to take decisions in its own national interests. It is time for the west to shed the headmaster syndrome. Cut the clamour for India to go on giving one sided concessions to Pakistan. Cut out the bogey of Indo-Pak and Sino-Indian nuclear war. Review of nuclear doctrine is India’s baby and to what extent India wants to join hands with which country is a decision that only India will take.