NMD's Chain Reactions And India

27 Jul, 2001    ·   531

Kannan avers that the Indian position on the NMD is a reflection of a more pragmatic policy
The proposed National Missile Defense  plan of the US has raised apprehensions in  international players who contend that it  will  turn the present global nuclear order upside down;   arms control would field to a renewed arms race, nuclear nonproliferation to reckless proliferation, balance of terror to imbalance of terror, MAD to NMD i.e. “Mutually Assured Destruction” being replaced by unilateral “Assured Survival” through NMD and an uneasy peace to uncertain peace.

 

 

This NMD plan poses an important question of India ’s concern:  “What could be the  chain reaction all over South Asia particularly in India which has assumed a new geo-strategic importance in the costar Indo – US relationship?”.  

 

 

Russia views the proposed NMD as a threat to the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which assures an uneasy peace through Mutually Assured Destruction between the US and Russia. This is why Russia opposes the  NMD. Russia and China accuse America of destabilizing the existing nuclear order and  triggering new arms race if the NMD shield is erected. In that case, Russia and China will have to deploy large resources into an increase and upgradation of their ballistic missiles to penetrate the NMD shield, and  maintain their strategic parity with each other. India ’s endorsement of the US NMD plan is viewed by  China   as the US riding piggyback on India to counter her rising power in Asia .

 

 

Sceptics in India speculate that the ramification of NMD would affect the security scenario of  India . This criticism proceeds on the following lines. India ’s early and positive response to the NMD is  immature and naïve. It will damage India ’s historical relations with Russia with which she enjoys cooperation in many fields.  By tilting towards the US India, whose foreign policy so for has been marked by NAM principle; will lose face before these countries. India ’s effusive endorsement of the NMD would erode its  moral authority [of  preaching total nuclear disarmament] since it will encourage a fresh arms race with renewed vigour. Whilst India ’s tilt towards the US and her repeated assertions since  the Pokhran II nuclear tests that China was the primary reason for her action will  irritate China and encourage its nuclear and missile proliferation to Pakistan , whose hostile activities towards India   will also get aggravated. India is furthering the US objectives which wants  to maintain its preeminence in the 21st century by, containing  Russia and China . 

 

 

But India can no longer afford to be a prisoner of  idealistic principles.  Hard reality informs that morality has no role to play in international politics when the factor of national interests arise. India liked the US proposal of reducing nuclear arsenals, which is in line with India ’s stand on total nuclear disarmament. A strong Indo-US relationship  will certainly benefit India   in the defense field, science and technology cooperation and economic sectors. India could solicit the US support for  becoming a  permanent member of the UN Security Council. The repeated assurances by the US on lifting  sanctions against India should be linked to India ’s support of the NMD. The US could extend its NMD shield to include India and establish an equilibrium between India and China . The present Indian Government has been successful in tackling the post Pokhran II situation and retrieving the Indo – US bilateral relationship. In the same way India must establish a delicate balance between the US and Russia . 

 

 

Pakistan ’s mismanaged domestic and international policy has led the US to brand it “least responsible state”. Successive failures of democracy in Pakistan and Chagai II have aggravated the damaged US – Pakistan bilateral relationship. At this juncture India has to exploit the situation, to promote her national interests. Sceptics suspect that given the fickle nature of the US, India can not expect the honeymoon to last long, but this argument can be met by nothing that even if it does not last long there is no harm but only gain. Therefore, it can be concluded that India is moving in the right direction, but in a more pragmatic manner.

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES