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

Charting a foreign policy for nuclear India

Now that everything, including the shouting, is over, it is time to take stock of where "nuclear power" India stands today, what has it gained, and what must it do to contain the reaction. One such concern is the diplomatic fallout. Now remains the task of picking up the pieces, evaluating the responses (mostly negative) and working towards a credible foreign policy.

The greatest reaction has been the fallout over Kashmir. By conducting its own nuclear tests, Pakistan has managed to drag the Valley of Paradise back centrestage. Even as this article was being written, the Permanent 5 members of the Security Council -- United States, China, Russia, France, and United Kingdom -- met in Geneva to discuss India, Pakistan, and Kashmir.

For India, this represents a step backwards, truly a diplomatic disaster. After years of effort to get the world's attention away from Kashmir, from the issues of human rights and the question of referendum that so dominated headlines in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there runs a serious risk of these issues being raised once more.

In fact, when Vajpayee pointed to China as a reason for conducting the nuclear blasts, in it lay the hope that perhaps our outlook can become more global, or at least Asian instead of just South Asian. Alas, it was not to be. Pakistan has once again forced itself to be equated with India. This is a flaw of many Indians also: We love comparing ourselves with Pakistan. And we satisfy ourselves by pointing out that our army, navy, air force is twice as large. This must end. The US does not compare itself with Mexico or Canada; France does not compare itself to Belgium; China does not compare itself to any of its neighbours with the exception of economic giant Japan and military power Russia.

Today, for better and worse, we are now a de facto nuclear power. The merits of going nuclear can be debated, but one cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Today, South Block must look ahead to a foreign policy that is commensurate with our abilities and image. Incidentally, we must remember that Pakistan too is a nuclear power. Our equation with Pakistan, and our dealings with our other neighbours will have serious repercussions for the rest of Asia.

In the 1950s, India strode the world stage like a colossus. Unfortunately, the attitude of Jawaharlal Nehru, who charted the beginning of our foreign policy, to look more at faraway horizons rather than to problems in the neighbourhood culminated in a series of disasters in the 1960, not the least being the disastrous 1962 war. India was forced to think more regionally. Later on, our inability to raise our economic strength also pushed India to the sidelines. Today, even if we have the political will, we lack the economic resources to really play a global role. It is indeed an irony that small countries like Denmark and Norway should give aid to India! One would have thought it should have been the other way round.

But India still counts as the voice of the discriminated nations. It is an image that does not please the upwardly mobile middle-class, who'd rather see India rub shoulders with the world's great powers. But New Delhi has only counted when it sought to speak on behalf of the Third World. The reason for this high standing was our moral stand on a variety of issues. It remains to be seen whether the BJP government plans to junk this aspect of India's legacy and chart a totally new path, or whether it at least seeks to retain the best elements of our past. A good test will be on how India deals with the CTBT and the NPT.

For years India argued against these two treaties on the grounds that they discriminated against those countries that did not have nuclear weapons. India insisted, and rightly so, that those countries that possessed nuclear weapons must give a firm commitment to disarm. Arundhati Ghose, India's indefatigable ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, argued, forcefully that India would never sign the treaty in its present form. One hopes India will keep her word. It was reported that many countries actually agreed with India though they were unable to say so openly. India earned quiet admirers and friends.

Today, despite its own nuclear weapons, India must still insist on a completely disarmed world. The world has banned chemical and biological weapons, why can't it ban nuclear weapons? The reason is simply because being technologically complex, nuclear weapons can be manufactured only by a few, giving the West an advantage. The CTBT and NTP were and are discriminatory treaties that seek to create a set of super elite versus the rest of the world. India then was on the side of the oppressed, will it now simply change sides to align with the oppressors.

In a television interview, Air Commodore Jasjit Singh, director of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, made an insightful remark. He said that Indians are one race that clearly comprehends discrimination, since it is an unfortunate part of our culture. True, but one can also add, that for years now, Indians are striving to rid their society of such discrimination. Our endeavours must not end. And if it is any consolation, news filtering in from Geneva says the P-5 are unwilling to recognise India and Pakistan as nuclear powers for the purpose of the treaty, which means that we will still be treated as a non-nuclear state.

India must also go beyond Pakistan, and this will remain extremely thorny. The Kashmir issue is not going to be solved overnight, insurgency will not die out. These are battles that go on and on, perhaps for years, and only politics can truly resolve them, not war or weapons. But India must seek to contain the fallout from the Kashmir issue. One cannot play a larger role in Asia or worldwide if a stubborn neighbour keeps seeking to trip us at every turn. Unfortunately, too many in the ruling party tend to see all issues as a Hindu or Muslim question (ignoring that many Arabs were happy when India detonated the bombs) or an India-Pakistan confrontation. Such an attitude runs the risk of losing friends in West Asia, and of communalising foreign policy.

Let India display the statesmanship associated with great nations. One can only hope the BJP rises above its parochial and narrow outlook to now forge a new diplomatic initiative in the Third World, Asian and globally, on issues of disarmament and a more equitable world order. The good news is that Prime Minister Vajpayee spends hours discussing foreign policy daily with ministry of external affairs officials. The bad news is that there are still people within the BJP and its affiliated groups who would love to test the next bombs outside India.

How readers reacted to Amberish K Diwanji's last columns

Amberish K Diwanji