India's Nuclear Doctrine

P.R. CHARI Viewpoint India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Confused Ambitions P.R. CHARI P.R. Chari is Director of the New Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. He previously served two tenures in India’s Ministry of Defence. His recent publications include the edited volumes Perspectives on National Security in South Asia: In Search of a New Paradigm (Manohar, 1999), India towards Millennium (Manohar, 1998), and Nuclear Non-Proliferation in India and Pakistan: South Asian Perspectives (Manohar, 1996). ndia’s five nuclear tests in May 1998 were ostensibly status rather than the result of a careful, com- impelled by security considerations. Prime Minister prehensive analysis of the security environment IVajpayee’s letter to President Clinton after the event and longer-term consequences. The timing of stated: the tests related to concerns that India could not We have an overt nuclear weapon state on our hold together indefinitely the aging teams of borders, a state which committed armed aggres- nuclear scientists and engineers who created the sion against India in 1962…. [T]hat country has bombs. And the government apparently judged materially helped another neighbor of ours to that any resulting sanctions would be limited and become a covert nuclear weapons state. At the short term.3 hands of this bitter neighbor we have suffered The ideological predilections of the Hindu fundamen- three aggressions in the last 50 years. And for talist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, founded the last 10 years we have been the victim of on convictions that state power equates with military power unremitting terrorism and militancy sponsored and nuclear weapons, also informed India’s decision.4 In 1 by it in several parts of our country…. addition, the defense and nuclear scientists were anxious India thus identified China and Pakistan as the security to prove their post-Pokharan I (as India’s 1974 nuclear reasons compelling it to test nuclear devices. Later, In- test was known) weapon designs developed by computer dian Defence Minister George Fernandes added US de- simulation and laboratory tests. Actual tests were crucial 2 ployments in Diego Garcia to these reasons, suggesting to perfect the thermonuclear and sub-kiloton devices they that India perceived an all-azimuth nuclear threat. had designed.5 Several motives, therefore, impelled the However, despite such claims, non-security factors tests; security concerns were not cardinal to this decision. clearly played a role. The Atlantic Council rightly attrib- In the global arena, the Indian and Pakistani nuclear uted the decision to domestic political developments: tests challenged the international nuclear regime that had …the decision was more grounded in domestic encrusted into a five-power structure. That regime had political imperatives and a desire for great power overcome earlier attempts by Sweden, South Korea, and The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2000 123 P.R. CHARI Taiwan to achieve nuclear status. More recently, nuclear and the doctrine falls back on the general tenets of nuclear aspirants like South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil had strategy and policy that have evolved over the several bridled their nuclear ambitions.6 Belarus, Kazakhstan, and decades of the nuclear era. This viewpoint then critiques Ukraine were cajoled into joining the Treaty on the Non- the draft doctrine from a strategic and arms control per- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Only Israel, spective. It concludes with a discussion of the unresolved India, and Pakistan have resisted being coerced into this dilemmas either raised in the draft, such as contradictory regime. The India-Pakistan nuclear tests unfroze the re- positions on no-first-use and credible minimum deterrence, gime and its established power structure, creating a radi- or ignored, such as the enormous cost of the proposed cally new situation. triad of nuclear forces. As part of its efforts to shift India’s nuclear weapon status from ambiguous to overt, the BJP government asked DRAFTING THE NUCLEAR DOCTRINE a group of advisors to make recommendations on nuclear The origins of India’s nuclear doctrine can be traced to posture and strategy. It would be tempting to suggest that the BJP’s election manifesto, issued before the March clearly recognizable international and/or domestic forces 1998 general elections, which first brought the BJP into shaped the contours of the draft nuclear doctrine that this power for a brief 13-day period. It promised that the BJP, group framed following India’s nuclear tests, and to be- if elected, would establish a National Security Council to lieve that this doctrine was intended to deter nuclear threats “undertake India’s first-ever Strategic Defence Review to to India’s national security. Nothing could be further from study and analyze the security environment and make the truth. As observed above, a medley of security and appropriate recommendations…[and to r]e-evaluate the non-security motives influenced the BJP government’s country’s nuclear policy and exercise the option to induct dramatic decision to conduct nuclear tests. This inchoate nuclear weapons.”7 This ambition was reiterated in the vision also informed the structure of the draft nuclear BJP’s “National Agenda for Governance.”8 doctrine; it was ostensibly intended to deal with an all- The nuclear tests were conducted before the National azimuth threat. However, I would argue that the substance Security Council undertook the Strategic Defence Review; of the doctrine was largely influenced by the periodic dec- in consequence, the nuclear doctrine was drawn up with- larations of the government on nuclear issues and the iden- out the security environment being analyzed to estimate tifiable views of the members comprising the National the nuclear threat to India’s security. Government apolo- Security Advisory Board (NSAB). No overarching vision, gists have used a legal quibble to argue that a plain read- therefore, informed the nuclear doctrine’s contours. In- ing of the Election Manifesto makes clear that establishing stead, it was partly designed to allay international appre- the National Security Council and conducting the nuclear hensions that India had no definable strategic objectives tests were two independent activities mentioned therein. that informed its nuclear tests and required India to pro- ceed beyond its earlier stated nuclear policy premised on The process of establishing the National Security Coun- strategic ambiguity. cil and drawing up the nuclear doctrine can now be de- scribed.9 The thinking in this regard is traceable to 1987, This viewpoint examines the draft nuclear doctrine and and considerable activity occurred at that time. It was ap- highlights its basic flaws. It first examines the administra- preciated that a National Security Council in a parliamen- tive processes and influences by which it was developed. tary democracy would need to be structured differently It will also address the question of whether the nuclear from one in a presidential system of government. The basic doctrine is official government policy or only a draft docu- problems related to its structure, the position of the Na- ment for discussion purposes. It then provides a context tional Security Adviser, and the question of whether it for the doctrine by reviewing India’s nuclear security situ- would be a statutory or advisory body. After the BJP gov- ation and the technical capabilities established by its 1998 ernment assumed power for the second time in March nuclear tests. After commenting on how the tests and the 1998, a three-man Task Force was appointed to advise draft doctrine actually reduced India’s security, the view- on constituting the Council.10 It interviewed several per- point dissects specific flaws in the doctrine. Its weaknesses sons and submitted its report by the end of June.11 are apparent from its general features that seek, almost self-consciously, to distinguish the Indian nuclear doctrine This report was not acted upon till the end of Novem- from its Western counterparts. However, that attempt fails, ber. What accounts for this five-month delay? Establish- 124 The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2000 P.R. CHARI ing the National Security Council to undertake the Strate- Five aspects of the NSC’s structure influenced framing gic Defence Review was accorded low priority after the of the nuclear doctrine. nuclear tests since they were a fait accompli. Also, Paki- • First, the principal secretary to the prime minister stan had conducted its nuclear tests in response, the Kash- (Brajesh Mishra) was chosen to be the national secu- mir problem remained unresolved, and South Asia was rity adviser; this ensured that he could not be effec- seen to have become a “nuclear flashpoint.” Thus, the tively involved in the framing of the nuclear doctrine NSC was designed to assuage global concerns that, de- because of his other onerous pre-occupations. spite conducting its nuclear tests, India had no institutional • Second, inclusion of the deputy chairman of the Plan- framework to evaluate security threats or evolve a nuclear ning Commission in the National Security Council high- doctrine; greater clarity was thus needed to avert the lighted the balancing act undertaken by the prime nuclear danger. minister to satisfy the moderates and extremists in the The nuclear doctrine was finalized some nine months BJP. As one reporter noted: “Too much power has been later after another general election had been called. This concentrated in the hands of Principal Secretary Brajesh was largely designed for acquiring electoral advantage. At Mishra and Planning Commission Deputy Chairman that time, I noted: “Nation-in-danger and the BJP’s es- Jaswant Singh, both of whom are also involved in a 15 pecial concern with national security are its main election turf war.” Mishra represented the extremists and Singh planks; hence, announcement of the nuclear doctrine at the moderates; both are close to Vajpayee.

Load more