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

Saisuresh Sivaswamy

Vajpayee reaches for his Viagra

Those opposed to India exercising its nuclear option, and luckily their number is limited, base their contention on two factors. One, that a poor country like India has other, more pressing problems confronting it; so ignoring them to arm the country with a lethal weapon is a case of misplaced priorities. Two, the timing is just not right. Why do it *now*, is their point.

First, the poverty aspect. Yes, it does not need to be retold ad nauseam that India ranks somewhere in the Stygian depths when it comes to national affluence. But whoever said poor nations don't need a defence? If that was the case, this 50-year-old nation would not have fought four wars, at an average of one every twelve-and-a-half years. And when you consider that the last war was fought 27 years ago, these wars had been fought in a space of just 23 years! And mind, not once on these four occasions was India the aggressor. Given our neighbors penchant for taking to arms against us, their restraint since 1971 perhaps has to do with the Buddha's first smile in 1974.

There is a related issue, which is what the Pakistanis have been bandying about and which the bleeding hearts among us have been picking on. That the Vajpayee government's decision to exercise the nuclear option is proof of India's hegemonistic and expansionist ambitions. That's a good laugh, actually. The tragedy about this country is that it has been singularly lacking in expansionist motives. Otherwise, despite winning the 1971 battle, we would not have ended up losing the war.

That victory must surely rank as the best example of how not to win a conflict. Our forces, which supposedly were within striking distance of the Pakistani capital, walked out after reinstating every inch of territory to the defeated side. India, which reportedly won the Bangladesh war, did not use the victory to settle the Kashmir dispute, thanks to which pusillanimity we are still being bled in that northern state. Contrast our victory with China's in 1962.

Winning a war is not just about defeating the enemy, it also means ensuring that he is never again able to arm himself against you. And even if our armed forces may have been able to achieve this in the past, the country's political leadership has persisted in being indecisive. And what can be better proof of this vacillation than the 1974 nuclear experiment, characterised for the next 24 years as a peaceful one?

It boggles the mind to imagine a weapon of mass destruction -- which is what, in the ultimate analysis, the atomic bomb is -- as a peaceful nuclear experiment. As the ancient art of Indian doublespeak goes, this must surely rank as the tops. Since 1974, the country has been subject to a self-enforced nuclear celibacy, so perhaps it was right that it took a brahmachari to break the vow.

The next point that critics, or fence-sitters, ask is, why now? Why not later? I guess this is somewhat like asking Indira Gandhi why May 1974, why not any other time? I am sure the inquirers would stick to their query even if Vajpayee were to explode the bomb three years later. A person making a decision does so after taking into consideration all factors, possible fallout, and does so when he thinks the time is opportune. The prime minister and his advisors, I am sure have chosen this as the best time to go nuclear, period. Would the West be more muted in its condemnation if we were to do the same later? Would Pakistan be less hysterical, or China less critical, of our action if Pokhran II came later?

Which reminds me, this must be the first instance where a government is being criticised for having fulfilled one of its pre-election promises. Accustomed as we are to political parties that trash their manifestos on coming to power, I suppose it is rather difficult to accept a party that has fulfilled at least one promise.

In politics, as in romance, timing is paramount, and I can't help feeling that 1974 was a darn better time for the country to have gone nuclear. The world was not as integrated as it is today, and anyway we had got used to our majestic isolation by then. The Western world reacted with anger, sure, but thankfully their sanctions pertained more to arcane matters. Today, thanks to our opening up to the world, the curbs could hurt us more than was the case 24 years ago. Having said that, let me also add that I am glad that the nuclear Rubicon was crossed in my lifetime and yours.

There are other differences between now and 1974. At that time, even as the First World snickered at this poor nation's aspirations, India was the toast of the Third World. Today, that votebank appears to be more muted towards us. And, if the Congress party seeks to lay claim -- rightly -- to the country's nuclear programme by virtue of having been in power for most of the time, it must also share the blame -- again, rightly -- for this diplomatic snafu, by virtue of the same logic.

The Congress's eagerness to appropriate the nuclear triumph is understandable. In 1974, Indira Gandhi with her nuclear halo became virtually unbeatable, and today Vajpayee appears as if he has discovered the elixir youth, after two months of being buffeted around by irascible allies. But 1974 also showed that such triumph is hollow if not followed up with successes on the home front, for only three years later a gaggle of old and tired men trounced Indira at the hustings.

Today Vajpayee may believe that he has found his secret pill, but as a bachelor he must know what matters most is endurance. Can he sustain the high for another five years?

How Readers responded to Saisuresh Sivaswamy's last column

Saisuresh Sivaswamy