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.
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…
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?
…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.
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’.
…why is China contemplating switch from NFU 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.
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.
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.
Please wait...
Nice article. India, as an independent nation take her own decision depending upon the prevailing defense situation. Nuclear doctrine should have been reviewed and appropriate changes have to made at the interest and sovereignty of the nation. The vies of the author is wonderful and acceptable one when we see it in an unbiased manner. Two kind of justice could not be weighed for the same kind of activities. The western countries should change their attitude towards india and respect our matured activities being a responsible nuclear power.
India has always been ambivalent internationally on its Nuclear & Space efforts. Indira tested & carried on with the “Bomb”; Rajiv did not test but contd the work under the guise of Peaceful Uses & Vajpayee second tested & advocated a NFU Military professionals on the other hand within & outside the country have however never been in doubt what India had in mind since we started these twin projects of Nuclear & Missile (through ISRO) development. It would also not be off the mark to say that our Nuclear Policy did get crystallised during Gen Sundarjee’s time. It vectored in the thresholds of our adversaries and the unacceptable damage that we would be able to inflict on them. The Army’s re-org towards the battlefield of the 21st century was one such pointer. Such reviews (of the NFU) within the system are therefore part of an evolutionary process in keeping pace with changing geo-strategic dynamics and do not automatically tantamount to a First Use as is being made out. I therefore feel that we are well within our legit right when we do so. I am however skeptical whether NaMo has the strategic vision to appreciate the consequences of such a review, after all what experience does he claim on matters global??? That is where he may well err due to political expediency rather than prudent military rationale. But I hope that He does review NFU and not let it remain as a mere poll “gimmick”. I also sincerely hope that the NFU once changed to FU does not get reviewed with every change of political dispensation at New Delhi. Notwithstanding it all, I am sure our adversaries would be carrying out their own analysis militarily of measures they need to adopt as & when NFU becomes official. Lastly two posers for you Prakash..1) What should India’s policy be on a repeat of 26/11..a surgical missile/drone strike on a few select terror camps or an Op Parakram stance or a combo of these two? 2) What would be Pak’s response, conventional, nuclear or diplomatic ? Thanks !!!
In today’s world ‘first use’ would be a desperate measure and NFU also doesn’t make sense. In any case both postures end up in MAD. It’s just that who started the fire and who got burnt more. In case of Pakistan it’s mainly posturing and sabre rattling their nukes. Whoever presses the Nuke Button in Pakistan will be pressing the button for the ultimate demise of Pakistan and they are aware of it. India is a country 3000 kms North to South and about the same East to West. India can’t be cindered but Pakistan can be. It’s good to review our policy and it should be done since equations political, strategic and tactical keep changing.
Secondly I am sure the General would answer your questions however in India’s case it’s good to keep the LC with Pakistan activated because an activated LC keeps the ‘Infiltration’ factor low. Yes we must go in for strikes against militant camps across in POK, let’s see what they will do? It’s also good to keep the Strike Corps close to the IB well poised, it hurts the Pakistanis to keep their forces mobilised for a long period of time. Long period of mobilisation begins to hurt Pakistan’s economy it’s not so much in the case with India.
Sir, people like Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajeev Gandhi can have acres of land as memorials. Three people ..just three people !!???? Those acres can only be termed as sycophancy greens but the fact of the matter is that who cares a shit about the Armed Forces Of India. Why didn’t we as an Army riase a war memorial in Delhi Cantt and call it the National War Memorial. Does the Chief need permission from the Govt to do so; and in case he did seek permission and was denied he should have resigned and gone home. But who had the gumption to do that; forget the Nation we in ourselves don’t have the spunk to push these issues. I think the Army Golf Club would be the right place to create a memorial to our soldiers. What have you to say about that? Maybe for the upper elite that’s treading on sacred soil of golfers so in the end we can’t have a memorial for our soldiers. The main issue is that our upper echelons do not have the ‘balls’ to do it. Coming to the Nukes – Pakis won’t just drop a nuke on the first day ..it’s not pre-emptive strike like they did before. Nukes would only be used after a certain thresh hold has been crossed. We should know what that is? As far as no first use is concerned it’s a good idea but then as you say how you do say what has been launched. Ok we get hit and retaliate. Is he going to launch one nuke and wait for us to retaliate; when he is going to launch its going to be multiple launches; for he knows there will be retaliation. Frankly what does Modi know about nukes and all that goes behind it, somebody gave him a script to babble about and he is now is back to no first use. Warning from the WEST is it?? The real issue is ‘strategic mind’ and we don’t have it and nor do we have the balls to have it. The Generals will play their incipient war games and regale over captive and dumb audience of bored officers and come out as victors. Childish thrills and imagination. Regards JP
It seems very funny to me as current PM advocates global no first use policy where as contesting candidate for prime minister ships wants to review it. I think it will be very lucky to to review as India has consistently claimed No first use policy.
In my opinion that nuclear is no such thing which should be observed individually or simply states personal matter. Just mentioning of revision in Indian nuclear doctrine created a big wave of concerns and apprehensions about the No First Use status. It unveils concerns not only at regional level but at the international level also. Every one well knows the changes in policies in order to contain the influence of emerging power China.
Revising the India No first use policy would actually put India’s capability to absorb first strike at stake. India since 2003 has constantly been in efforts to modernize it military power in form of introducing new and sophisticated weapons, enhancing the capability of already existing ones, seeking for nuclear cooperation and some how has operated nuclear power plants at quite some places. These developments are not actually in accordance with No-First Use policy, and these things have actually proved that India has already diverted from it NFU policy in practical terms.
Revising the India No first use policy would actually put India’s capability to absorb first strike at stake. India since 2003 has constantly been in efforts to modernize it military power in form of introducing new and sophisticated weapons, enhancing the capability of already existing ones, seeking for nuclear cooperation and some how has operated nuclear power plants at quite some places. These developments are not actually in accordance with No-First Use policy, and these things have actually proved that India has already diverted from it NFU policy is practical terms.
A very astute article.
The hypocrisy of the west can be seen from the fact that none of them have endorsed the NFU in their doctrine. Had they done that, we might have been a step closer to achieving Nuclear Zero.
Well,the western countries are fully aware of Indian Potential which is its poverty, rampant corruption,mismanaged economy, political indeciveness and downgraded and sidelined military. Thus no one takes such a pliant nation seriously. Talking of memorials when there is no place for raising memorials for our politicians followed by bureucrats how their can be place for soldiers who come last in priority. Such nuclear discussions are only good brain exercises with no results of which everyone is aware. China and pak can never be our friends and if we hope so thenwe desrve the place where we are presently in.
why Pakistan is making thousands of tactical nuclear weapons? Just for 2 million Indian army? I think only 300 Tactical nuclear bombs will sufficient for Indian army not thousands. Americans must make good friendship with Pakistan< Indians are not trustable < they just want use Americans for their own interest. India is dead horse. India has no such a important land Americans can use it for their own interest Pakistan has common border with china and with Iran and with central Asia> usa must invest in pak> Pakistan made usa alone superpower to defeat Ussr with isi and now Pakistan can again make usa rich but only need not trap in hand of these fraud Indians who have nothing to offer except show “faaaake shurley(long range missile) for china. ARE AMERICAN ARE STUPID?