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

Create wealth before bombs

Defence and matters related are back centrestage. First there was much talk about the BJP (finally) building India's nuclear bomb -- this great dream of so-many of India's elite. Then, Pakistan fired a missile -- the Ghauri -- capable of hitting any Indian city. Next, Pakistani scientist A Q Khan declared Pakistan's nuclear ability. All this has strengthened the voice of those seeking a nuclear-armed India, though the government has displayed amazing maturity and restraint, at least so far.

In these days of military fervour, it seems almost sacrilegious to offer a differing opinion. India does not need a nuclear bomb (not yet at least, unless it is proven that Pakistan has a stockpile), and Ghauri should be seen in the right perspective instead of nervous sabre-rattling (which only suits the hawks on both sides). It is a tactical move that must be met, and anyway, the Prithvi and Agni are more than a match for any Pakistan missile, ditto Indian bombs.

So why this upsurge? Sadly it all began with the BJP's manifesto which clearly states that the party will review the country's nuclear option. For many pro-nuclear bomb Indians, this is perhaps the best (and maybe last) chance to get the country to explode a bomb once and for all. For this lobby, an explosion will signal India's entry to the N-5 club (the nuclear club that so far comprises the US, Russia, France, the UK, and China), and put India up there with the so-called "Great Powers".

Yet, it is also pertinent to ask more than ever before: does India need a nuclear bomb? Relations with both our neighbours have not been overtly hostile. Pakistan has singularly lacked the capacity to take on India on the battlefields, ever since its humiliation in 1971. It has been reduced to fighting a proxy war, earlier in the Punjab, and now in Kashmir and the North-East. Pakistan has also sent in its agents to provoke and stir up unrest among the dissatisfied population, mostly Muslims in India who feel they are getting a raw deal from the State.

Pakistan is NOT a threat as far as conventional war is concerned. Moreover, its nuclear and missile abilities are still rudimentary compared to India, and Pakistan is technologically far behind India in the missile race. Much more important, Pakistan faces a massive resource crunch and will be hard pressed to build a nuclear arsenal. A single Ghauri or N-bomb is not a major threat to India. That is why Air Chief Marshal S K Sareen told everyone to sleep peacefully. Certainly India must remain alert to strategic changes, but let not India stand accused of provoking the enemy.

Then there is China. After 1962, India's relation with its northern neighbour has been marked by cordiality. Strategists and analysts never tire of pointing out that in the long run, China will be India's competitor and rival. Perhaps, but in the short run, China is too bothered by its economic changes, the difficulty in feeding its vast millions (China, 2.5 times India's size, has less arable land), and holding together its political structure even as it metamorphosis into an economic giant in the next millennium.

Militarily, China's concerns remain the Korean peninsula, Taiwan, and Tibet (not necessarily in that order). China also remains worried about a nationalist Japan emerging, and Russia growing strong again. Taiwan brings it into conflict with the United States. Thus, India is not China's defence focus. If anything, Beijing will want certainly want peaceful relations on its southwestern underbelly.

China has more or less kept relations with India on an even keel, save for its nasty habit of helping Pakistan's military programme. And this might be a clever tactical move to keep India's attention focussed on Pakistan and not China. Still, right now Beijing's focus is economics and internal stability. This should also suit India fine. In fact, like China, India too needs to focus on economics and exploding a nuclear device will only spoil it all, setting off a chain reaction all around and derailing economic growth.

One gets the distinct impression that those demanding an Indian nuclear bomb have not thought out its implications, which -- to put it mildly -- are mind-boggling. First is the question of control and command. Given our unstable political leadership, who'll control the button? A prime minister who may be out within a year and leading an unstable coalition? Or the leader of an unstable party that might decide to go to war to distract public attention from its failures and continue in power?

Will it be our faceless bureaucrats, legendary for their insensitivity and lack of concern for the plight of Indians at large? Should they be authorised to take policy decisions at the highest level when they are responsible to no one? Or should it be just the generals though a former French premier had once declared: "War is too important to be left to the generals."

The second factor is the impossible cost. For all our bragging, India remains a pathetically poor country. Fifty per cent of Indians are illiterate, forty per cent (or 350 million) remain unsure of their next meal, while disease, feudalism, and a poor quality of life remain rampant. India's human development index rates higher than only sub-Saharan Africa. Can such a poor country commit so much of its resources when there is no clear threat? These are just two of the many questions that need to be resolved before stockpiling nuclear arms.

People talk of national pride that cannot be quantified. Nuclear weapons as a source of pride is skewed. It may mean much to the chattering class -- the urban, upper class that knows and cares little about how the other side survives. There is far greater pride in being economically equal to the great powers's economic equal, in being a financial giant that no one can or dare ignore. And economic clout will give India the "Great Power" image that our elites so badly desire. China's new found relevance in the world today is not because it has bombs (which it has had since 1964) but because it had an economic growth rate in double digits.

Japan and Germany are considered greater powers than nuclear-armed France and the United Kingdom (the last was dubbed a third rate power by none other than former Indian premier I K Gujral!). North Korea with believed nuclear abilities is irrelevant except when it rattles its weapons, South Korea is so relevant that when its economy falters, the IMF pumps in billions of dollars as aid!

If anything, given the relatively stable neighbourhood and peaceful world environment, it is time that India devotes its entire energy into achieving a 10 per cent growth rate, eradicating illiteracy and hunger, and annihilating our inequitous social structure forever. The money planned for nuclear arms can be put to better use in a variety of fields that will make India a great power, and Indians a better people, by 2025. After all, if Bill Gates chose India to set up a unit for Microsoft, obviously the country has the potential. It will certainly make everyone proud when no Indian goes to bed hungry, when every child can read and write, and when an Indian Budget is news globally.

Moreover, today, the world is clearly moving away from the concept of war as diplomacy by other means. Pure military strength is only a weapon of last resort, economic might matters at the earlier stages. Today, India's relations is not at a nadir to necessitate nuclear arms, but India can improve its position in the world be becoming an economic power of consequence. In the new global village, where markets are global and money knows no border, economic clout is what matters in international relations. In the 1960s, the Southeast Asian crisis meant the Vietnam war, today it means the market disasters in Thailand and Indonesia.

India's greatest threat today comes from within, which no nuclear weapon can wipe out. It is the aspiring poor who want more, the dispossessed, those at at the bottom of the system and the country. Pakistan's greatest weapon against India is stoking the flames of resentment and alienation among the multitudes of India -- in Kashmir, in the North-East, and among the poor Muslims, and other downtrodden of India. These threats are best met by making Indians a better and more prosperous people, by making New Delhi more responsive to the cries of the poor and deprived, the dispossessed and alienated, and by eliminating the virus of communalism and caste. To fight Pakistan's covert war against India, the country needs to upgrade its intelligence service, strengthen its border and police forces, guard against subversive activities such as fomenting communal and caste riots, and improve the country's social fabric.

If a threat arises, then certainly India must take the necessary steps (so that 1962 is never repeated). But when there is no patent threat from China or Pakistan (except for loud talk), why stoke the fires by going in for nuclear bombs, and committing precious resources that can be fruitfully utilised elsewhere? Exploding a bomb at this juncture will only set off an unaffordable chain reaction by forcing both Pakistan and China to stockpile nuclear arms.

Let India concentrate on one thing at a time, and right now, it is the question of prosperity for all. New Delhi can have its nuclear weapons once it is an economic giant, when its request to participate in the Asia-Europe summit is respected, not rejected; when its share of global trade is 6 per cent, not 0.6 per cent! Let us today concentrate on creating wealth rather than bombs.

How readers reacted to Amberish K Diwanji's last column

Amberish K Diwanji