SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Rajeev Srinivasan

Nuclear ambition is a legitimate expression of nationalism

Third, there might be calculation about Bill Clinton's scheduled visits to China, Pakistan and India later this year. Doesn't it stand to reason that Clinton would be looking to announce wide-ranging co-operation with China when he visits in June? Maybe the BJP wished to assert that Indian interests need to be considered before Clinton bent over backwards to appease China.

For example, there was a very crude 'plant' in the NY Times -- according to the Hindustan Times, this has been traced back to the office of one Mr Einhorn of the US state department -- immediately after the news of Pakistan's Ghori missile. If proven, Chinese complicity in transferring missile technology to Pakistan would invite MTCR-related sanctions on China from the US. And this would make Clinton's China trip a little less full of bon homie.

Therefore, the 'plant' -- an allegation about India's Sagarika submarine-launched cruise missile being aided by technology transfers from the Russians. The Sagarika has not been launched and there is no technical evidence of Russian help; yet, this was a nice diversionary move that took the heat off China. Yes, the US will do anything to appease China. Anybody remember Neville "we have peace in our time" Chamberlain?

Many analysts have also suggested that there are compelling domestic reasons for the Indian government to test now -- that they were viewed as a weak, squabbling coalition, unable to put into place any cohesive plans. There is truth to this; but then everyone plays to the gallery, don't they? Much of Clinton's exertions are meant to 'play in Peoria'. I was entertained to see, similarly, that Newt Gingrich, Clinton's arch-enemy, quickly seized on this issue, and demanded Clinton treat China and India on par.

It is true that India's attention has been concentrated by the nuclear business: I don't hear a peep out of J Jayalalitha and her demands for the head of the M Karunanidhi, for example. Even the Opposition parties generally had to support the testing, knowing the overwhelming support from the public. So it has indeed bought the BJP an extended honeymoon.

It remains to be seen if they will squander this goodwill. Foreign observers have suggested that the BJP might call for snap elections to take advantage of their sudden popularity -- I think not: the Indian voter is swayed by local issues more than international issues, and is unlikely to suddenly vote the BJP way.

The opportunity exists, however, for the government to take unpopular but necessary economic steps, in this atmosphere of closing the ranks against concerted foreign attacks on the country. To use Jimmy Carter's immortal phrase, India is now in the MEOW (Moral Equivalent of War), as the Americans turn their formidable arsenal on.

The government have made an excellent beginning by fast-tracking some infrastructure projects. Now if only they can move forward on their promise to rationalise the power sector by taking away unreasonable subsidies paid by pork-barrel-crazy state governments. And clip the wings of the bureaucracy by adopting the Pay Commission recommendations on firing many of them.

And speaking of economic issues, now might be just the right time for Indian Airlines to put on hold its plans to buy several Boeing aircraft, and to re-invite Airbus to bid. If you remember, China quite ostentatiously did precisely this a few years ago, in the wake of Tiananmen Square -- they said, "Out of political considerations, we will buy from Airbus". And did. Boeing panicked, and has ever since been a supplicant in Washington on China's behalf.

So I think the French, who have resisted imposing sanctions on India -- following precisely this line or argument, no doubt: the French are commercially astute -- should be rewarded with the Airbus order, or at least the possibility should be waved about in their faces. It is a fact that there are others entirely willing to step in and trade with India should the Americans decline to do so. It is also obvious that sanctions don't work very well: observe tiny Cuba, groaning under US sanctions for fifty years. Yet Fidel Castro is very much there. The US is not omnipotent.

That brings up one of my major concerns about the timing of these tests: the fact that the economic crisis in the rest of Asia is getting worse, and that India is once again missing a golden opportunity to be seen as an oasis of stability. First it was Sitaram Kesri who messed up by toppling the Gujral government, now the BJP do this. It must make the swadeshi votaries of the BJP quite happy.

If you look around Southeast Asia, Indonesia is going through another "Year of Living Dangerously." Japan is in trouble. China, everyone's darling, has the "worst banking system in Asia" according to the Economist, which believes that up to 20 per cent of all bank loans are bad debts, i.e. up to 1.5 trillion yuan (some $ 200 billion). A Chinese banker who sat next to me on a flight from San Francisco agreed with this assessment. His solution: he's trying to get a job in the US and get out of China!

Therefore, India could have put itself forward as a safe haven, and attracted some of the capital fleeing from the rest of Asia. Alas, it was not to be. As a neo-liberal, I am disappointed, because it is worth attracting foreign capital and especially the resulting political goodwill.

The other question that troubles me about the tests is that of logistics. Assuming India goes forward and actually weaponises, is there in place the command and control mechanism to ensure that accidents don't happen? It is worth noting that the US has acknowledged many -- far too many for comfort -- glitches in their nuclear apparatus that could have responded to false alarms and sent missiles winging the Soviets's way. This concerns me, given the generally notorious state of the infrastructure in India.

Nevertheless, despite these misgivings, I fully support the Indian government's position. For, India has never been a proliferator -- more than can be said of the US, France, and especially China -- and it has thus obeyed the spirit of the NPT better than these worthies. This is partly because India is not part of any military alliances. Thus, in effect, India is a neutral state: if the Chinese and the Islamists and the West wish to massacre each other (Huntington's hypothesis), India should sit firmly on the sidelines.

However, the only neutral states that have survived are those armed to the teeth. Consider Switzerland, everyone's favourite neutral state. It is formidably well-armed, and can seriously inconvenience any neighbourhood bullies -- this is the reason it has been left alone by Europe's warring nations, not any respect for the principle of neutrality. India should pursue this policy of armed neutrality.

Finally, the tests do have to be seen in terms of pure national pride. India has long felt ignored -- not given the respect due to its economy (fourth largest, I think, at purchasing power parity), and its unbroken and ancient culture. India's quixotic quest for a Security Council seat stems from this grievance. Nuclear ambition is a legitimate expression of nationalism, whether the US and China like it or not.

Rajeev Srinivasan