More, Mr Parrikar

He is duty-bound to confound assessments of India’s nuclear deterrent.

Written by Bharat Karnad | Published:November 21, 2016 12:01 am
manohar parrikar, india, india nuclear power, nuclear power india, india nukes, nukes in india, india news, india military, india defence Manohar Parrikar

Deterrence is a mind game. Nuclear deterrence is even more psychologically weighted because at stake, quite literally, is a nation’s survival as a “social organism”, to use the words of the geopolitical theorist Halford Mackinder.

What makes nuclear deterrence work is the ambiguity and opacity shrouding its every aspect. These range from weapons/warheads, delivery systems, their deployment pattern, command and control system to details about storage, reaction time, and physical, electronic and cyber security schemes, the weapons production processes, the personnel involved and policies relating to all these elements. The more anything remotely connected with nuclear hardware and software, strategy, policies, plans and posture is a black hole, the greater is the uncertainty in the adversary’s mind and the unpredictability attending on the deterrent. Moreover, pronouncements emanating from official quarters that obfuscate matters and generate unease, especially about India’s nuclear weapons-use initiation and nuclear response calculi, enhance the sense of dread in the minds of adversary governments. Dread is at the heart of successful nuclear deterrence.

It is the responsibility of the Indian government to make the ambiguity-opacity-uncertainty-unpredictability matrix denser, not make it easier for adversaries to plumb its political will and to read its strategic intentions by clarifying nuclear issues. The adversaries one needs to keep in mind are as much the obvious ones — China and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan — as the “friendly” countries, such as the US. The US, in particular, was at the forefront of preventing India from crossing the nuclear weapons threshold, failing in which enterprise, it has done everything to ensure India stays stuck at the low-end of the nuclear weapons technology development curve. It insisted that India does not resume underground nuclear testing, or depart from the US understanding of limited nuclear deterrence. It may also be recalled that, for geopolitical reasons of containing India to the subcontinent during the Cold War, Washington disregarded its own proliferation concerns and watched China nuclear missile-arm Pakistan even as it preached responsible behaviour to New Delhi.

In this context, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s wondering why no-first-use (NFU) is assumed to be a restraint on the Indian nuclear forces is just the monkey wrench that needed to be thrown into the Western considerations of this country’s nuclear security. American think-tanks help the US government to achieve its nuclear non-proliferation objectives, propagating, for instance, the hollow India-Pakistan “nuclear flashpoint” thesis that Washington has often used to pressure a usually diffident and malleable New Delhi. Pakistan naturally supports this thesis as a means of legitimating its fast-growing nuclear arsenal, as do many Indian analysts for their own reasons.

No surprise, then, that Parrikar’s stray thoughts on NFU have shocked the large community of flashpoint believers and acted as bait for George Perkovich, one of the stalwart proponents of this idea, to rise to it. He uses the morality card — the loss of India’s supposed “high ground” which has been sufficient by itself in the past to subdue the Indian government — and labels Parrikar’s statements as “superficial, perhaps, dangerously so” (see his “Impolitic musings”, The Indian Express, November 15). The truth, however, is that Perkovich — and by extension, Washington — is worried that Parrikar has upended the US-qua-Western nuclear construct for South Asia.

But NFU is less of an issue for Perkovich than his desire to get Parrikar to explain “whether and how” India means to enlarge its nuclear forces and infrastructure and “revise its operational plans” contingent on New Delhi’s apparent jettisoning of NFU. In this respect, it is pertinent to note that besides its intelligence agencies, Washington has always relied on American think-tankers and gullible Indians to help winkle out details of the Indian nuclear deterrent — Perkovich’s primary intent. I recall that at a 1.5 track meet held under the US government’s aegis in San Diego in December 1998 the hosts called in a surviving Manhattan Project biggie, Herbert York, to impress on the Indians there the dangers of the nuclear course India was embarked upon. They banked on an Indian patsy — the joint secretary (Americas), MEA — to repeatedly ask K. Subrahmanyam and me to speculate about what weapons strength constituted a “minimum” deterrent.

Indeed, far from being under any obligation to throw light on NFU or any other nuclear issue, Parrikar is almost duty-bound to air his “personal views” more frequently on the subject and thus keep confounding assessments regarding India’s deterrent.

The writer is professor at the Centre for Policy Research. He was member of the nuclear doctrine-drafting group in the first NSAB

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. R
    Ram
    Nov 21, 2016 at 9:50 am
    If India wants peace it should develop all kinds and ranges of nuclear weapons in large number. We shoud keep nuclear weapons just a button away and also make sure that our 1st strike will be last for the enemy. If it's stan, there will be no left alive in stan same should be the case for China.
    Reply
    1. S
      Satendra kumar
      Nov 21, 2016 at 5:42 am
      Indians and India both respect the nuclear deterrent to neutralise the system of governance.Let"s see the South Asian Terrority.There is China a communist state and other is Islamic state of stan.Unlike which has democratic rule rights of lands law which adore the UN Charter System of laws.The Indian themselves has unique problems from economic and social development.to mordern India with Nerhu Dynasty it working with rest of the world to make this planet and it's habitat a better place.
      Reply
      1. A
        Ahsan Ali
        Nov 21, 2016 at 3:14 pm
        While NFU has an ured innate fascination for strategists, it is a flawed idea. First, nuclear deterrence can only be established when there is considerable threat of nuclear escalation during any crisis. Second, NFU is a dangerous deception and there is no urance that even a country that has given such a pledge will not use nuclear weapons once in a crisis. The NFU constraint in India’s nuclear doctrine is just a pretence to win western support for greater access to civil nuclear technology. If India were such a great proponent of NFU, it would not have doubted the Chinese NFU pledge.
        Reply
        1. A
          Arvind
          Nov 21, 2016 at 5:11 pm
          The military understands it but who will explain this to our journalists and Babus who have India's defense policy by the throat, without having a clue on deterrence or for that matter on any thing military except trying to lower the status and wages of the Armed Forces. The History educated Indian IAS Babus don't have nuclear technology or modern military doctrine in their curriculum and are pretending to play a major geopolitical game unfolding in our neighborhood on the basis of ping a solitary, UPSC exam once in their life time to become experts from farming to space technology.
          Reply
          1. D
            Dash
            Nov 21, 2016 at 6:27 pm
            The last para is superb. Parrikar is not a fool. Low-IQ jurnos don't know why that statement was made. Govt achieved what it intended.
            Reply
            1. G
              Gurtesh Matharu
              Nov 21, 2016 at 5:17 am
              Finally, some hard strategic thinking.
              Reply
              1. T
                Tellitasitis
                Nov 21, 2016 at 7:00 am
                There was no debate on this subject since the government was in a slumber under UPA. stan's internal problems, support of US and China to stan, and the increase in border trouble for India has made it necessary for us to mention our nuclear arms to be factored in if stan alone or with China wishes to aim at something higher than skirmishes. Good that Parrikar has struck that much needed note of warning to stan
                Reply
                1. K
                  Kuruvilla
                  Nov 21, 2016 at 2:14 am
                  We should simply delete our no first use policy and dont say anything about policy.
                  Reply
                  1. A
                    ashok
                    Nov 21, 2016 at 7:44 am
                    There may be more than a little confusion in his own mind. He recently said that the Tejas, a single engined aircraft, has a range of 450 kilometres, while the Rafale has a range of 900 kilometres because it is twin engined. Unclear if he is the best man to be playing mind games with India's nuclear doctrine.
                    Reply
                    1. M
                      M K Keswani
                      Nov 21, 2016 at 6:16 am
                      A very good article. Initially even I as a common man wondered, why Parrikar has to issue such statement. But Karnad has explained all. Yes he is absolutely right and Parrikar not only in his personal capacity but as Defence Minister as well should issue such statements to keep world guessing.
                      Reply
                      1. C
                        Chandru
                        Nov 21, 2016 at 9:26 am
                        The so called experts or self proclaimed intellectuals think thatlt;br/gt;Defence including nuclear weapons is a game of Chess- an intellectual gamelt;br/gt;Unfortunately Defence is a game of Poker! Bluffing is a big part in that game !
                        Reply
                        1. R
                          Ramesh Nittoor
                          Nov 21, 2016 at 3:55 am
                          Speak as an OCI Indian only, the concern is with this kind not fully thought out stances, the fledging security architecture is being put to uncertainity, and worse leads to regional instability. There are enough cunning White strategic thinkers who probably favor distrust in the South Asian region. These folks have already undermined the idea of America, and may be encouraging a wrong kind of axis nexus with Indian security establishment.
                          Reply
                          1. R
                            Ramesh Nittoor
                            Nov 21, 2016 at 12:02 am
                            The candid stance of Bharat is welcome, for it is shaped not by typical Indian think tank writers who have roots in western world. Such subtle biases of the west connected exponents may at some level compromise Indian security. Stance like Bharat keeps Indian non-aligned, perhaps a mandatory requirement to have a successful long-term security architecture based on commonality of values with developed democracies.
                            Reply
                            1. R
                              Ramesh Nittoor
                              Nov 21, 2016 at 12:14 am
                              The ideation of legal state and that of social organism are two different kinds of thought constructs. From the precept of legal state, the conclusion of NFU has been arrived at in a crystal clear manner. Bharat seemingly draws a different inference his perception of the kind of social organism he perceives India ought to be. This is a political idea, and hence his premise can not be questioned, only voted upon by fellow Indians.
                              Reply
                              1. R
                                Ramesh Nittoor
                                Nov 21, 2016 at 12:22 am
                                Think any inference which is inconsistent from requirements of a legal state, weakens the legal state. It is necessary to review the precepts on which social organism was founded. Wish it is based on hian premise of Hindustaniyat, or derived from syncretic indic values of Bharatiyata. Think if it is either of these socio-political paradigm, then there shall be no incompatibility with conclusion derived from legal state ideation.
                                Reply
                                1. R
                                  Ramesh Nittoor
                                  Nov 21, 2016 at 10:22 am
                                  When a bullet whizzes past your skull, you will know what fear is and what war means. In war countless such bullets fly. We have to find reliable ways to peace, so that the people of Indian subcontinent, the fourth quadrant, most burdened with deprivation and disease is able to develop and their families prosper. Now, India has two established socio-political constructs, which can reliably sustain the Indian legal-state. The second one has been just reinforced by this administration, and it seems to ping the big test of upheaval caused by demonetisation. Defence of India and along with it, scope for regional stability is being reinforced. But let there be no doubt that airing of views, RM so unwittingly did, and aggravated by irresponsible Mr. Arun Prakash and hawkish Mr. Bharat, has been barely contained.
                                  Reply
                                  1. R
                                    Ramesh Nittoor
                                    Nov 22, 2016 at 12:09 am
                                    smg, see you began IE blogging with this post. This makes me think it is necessary to persist at IE bit further.
                                    Reply
                                    1. R
                                      Ramesh Nittoor
                                      Nov 21, 2016 at 10:58 am
                                      to make the ambiguity-opacity-uncertainty-unpredictability matrix denser, not make it easier for adversaries to plumb its political will and to read its strategic intentions by clarifying nuclear issues. --- This is not humanstic thinking, it does not reflect the Hanumat of Bajrangi bali, Hon RM spoke of earlier to charchterize Indian forces. India defence is a sattvik shakti, it is a force of good, it operates per legal precepts of secular Indian Consution. This trust must be perceived even by those who are enemies of India, as it is written in Ramayana, how Ravan perceived Lord Ram. There is a need for reflection on policy clarity, and allay doubt.
                                      Reply
                                      1. P
                                        Priyank
                                        Nov 21, 2016 at 5:55 pm
                                        I completely agree to the view of the article. While the world, especially US, is acting as a moral referee for India, stan has been flourishing to the point that it now has more nuclear warheads than India - not to mention at the expense of money and expertise pouring in from Washington. Yes, we are culturally a more tolerant group and have not drove the opening offense (and I don't believe we will ever), we should not let the world think that we are gullible.lt;br/gt;Having said that, Shri Parrikar's 'personal' views was a good stroke! It did put the bullying powers in a wondering situation of what was to come next.
                                        Reply
                                        1. R
                                          Rishi Sharma
                                          Nov 21, 2016 at 11:19 am
                                          Their plight could not be worse. Rafale jet fighters are about the last thing they need! The greatest means to enhance security in South Asia is not more weapons.
                                          Reply
                                          1. D
                                            David
                                            Nov 21, 2016 at 4:54 am
                                            The more soft you are as a country the more is abstracted from you. Congress fell prey to this. Commies and Left liberals suit the West. When it comes to India the embrace of the West and Indian left is a strange kind.lt;br/gt;India should make no commitments. What if our "known" and "unknown" enemies strike us first and India is completely debilitated without the mechanism to strike back.
                                            Reply
                                            1. Load More Comments