Search the Internet           Tips

Pak war threat led to nuclear tests: Mishra

"Actually discussion (on the nuclear policy) took place two weeks or so after the prime minister took oath (on March 19, 1998) and we left it at that."

"Then came the missile and all the claims from the other side of a war. At that point, the prime minister said, 'OK, lets go ahead (with the tests)'," Mishra told Vir Sanghvi on Star Talk programme to be telecast on November 12.

He recalled having told Sanghvi during a panel discussion in the mid-1990s that if the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power, it would immediately explode a nuclear device.

"Yes, I have always felt that you cannot in today's world be counted for something without going nuclear," Mishra, who is also the National Security Adviser, asserted.

He said the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference decided to extend NPT indefinitely, which meant perpetuating the regime of the five nuclear weapon states.

A retired Indian Foreign Service officer, Mishra was made convenor of the BJP's Foreign Affairs Cell after joining the party in 1987. At that point, he had decided that if he had ever anything to do with the government, going nuclear would be the first priority, according to a transcript of the interview made available.

Asked if he was the only person who knew about the decision to conduct the Pokhran tests, Mishra said, "Well, I cannot say who else the prime minister himself mentioned it to. I have no idea. I have never asked him. It is possible that he did talk to some of his Cabinet ministers."

He admitted that he knew about the nuclear tests right from the word go and was totally involved with the entire process.

On the recommendation of the Subrahmanyam Committee that an independent National Security Adviser be appointed, Mishra said a Group of Ministers was examining ways of implementing the Kargil Review Committee report.

"But there is another angle to it and this I am not saying for personal reasons. I have seen this happen in other countries, where the job of both national security and principal secretary is entrusted to people who are totally trusted by the prime minister. Secondly, you do not want a conflict in this situation, so it is better for one person to deal with them," he said.

Maintaining that India was in the initial stages of setting up a national security system, he said, "At this time, it is better for the two jobs to remain with one person but this should not be the ultimate solution. You may come to a point a year or two later when you can separate the two jobs."

Tell us what you think of this report