Commentary/Varsha Bhosle
Sink or Swim
'It is not just the military. Civilian programmes are equally
plagued by failures. ISRO's space programme is saddled with the
highest launch failure rate in the world. If sanctions are
imposed, the foreign content in ISRO's satellites and launch
vehicles would lead to time and cost overruns. Worse, sanctions
could be used to block India out of the global space market.'
~ Gaurav Kampani on Rediff On The NeT, May 1997.
On September 29, India launched the PSLV, injecting a fully
operational remote-sensing satellite into space. After a flawless
take-off, the vehicle traced its trajectory with "textbook-like"
precision and placed the IRS-1D in orbit. On the same day, the
indigenous heat-seeking, anti-tank guided missile Nag was
successfully test fired for the second day, making India part of a
select club of nations which are capable of designing, developing
and producing missile systems, battle tanks, combat aircraft, etc.
But, before the euphoria of that eventful Monday abated, the damn
orbiter developed a snag, upsetting India's future space plans.
Worse, four days later, it was found that the INSAT-2D, crippled
by a severe power problem, is in its last throes...
The chorus of gleeful I-told-you-so's is straining to be heard.
And, as is my wont, I shall push the case for why India should
continue to flex its developing techno-muscle, whether that means
bettering SLV's and satellites or building nuclear missiles (the
two are closely related, anyway). The awfully depressing Prophets
of Doom, no doubt, believe that the horribly expensive thinggie
whose job is to buzz around Earth and downlink fuzzy pictures and
funny data didn't deserve to tie up all those funds which could
have more beneficently been diverted to erecting public toilets.
On top of which travesty, the blasted thing failed. But at least
so far, all's well with the Nag. So, fellow-jingoists, do not
despair -- let's unfreeze Agni and hustle the Prithvi!
As is obvious, this columnist is no expert on anything she writes
about, least of all finance and technology. But there are some
aspects of the space and nuclear programmes which do not require
specialized knowledge -- it would be like saying, a person who's
unfamiliar with public administration, should not vote. From time
to time, we all must put our shoulders behind totally inscrutable
and uncontrollable happenings. So today, I'll spread the wisdom
bequeathed to me by my eloquent friend, nuclear philosopher and
heat-seeking guide Jaideep Menon who
believes that India should follow a covert and limited nuclear
programme with the goal of 'opaque deterrence' (which implies
keeping potential aggressors unsure of our capabilities) and for
which, we must have at least something to show if they call our
bluff. Bottom-line: we gotta get some bombs in the basement.
Just the potential to rapidly build a nuclear arsenal (what's
known as 'non-weaponised deterrence', implying that we have
unassembled nuclear kits) has little meaning if someone launched a
nuke on us as the first option of war. If that scenario exists,
and of course it *does*, the critical questions would be: Which
nation would do a stoopid thing like nuking another? And, can we
assemble and launch our weapons in an hour or two before we are
zitted? Gentlemen, can we at all afford to wait and find out? By
the time we ascertain the answer to either question, we'd know
first hand the meaning of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust..."
A nuclear arsenal does not only deter the use of nuclear weapons
by others, it also deters the use of chemical and bio-chemical
warfare by a country which may not have nukes (eg, serene Iraq).
Moreover, one can imagine the psychological impact of a nuclear
arsenal in the case of a conflict between a nuclear and a non-
nuclear country: For example, during the Falklands war, Britain is
said to have deployed at least one nuclear-missile-carrying
submarine off the shores of Argentina, thereby sending a very
potent message to Buenos Aires. No matter what Mr Bill Clinton
preaches, the nuclear threat itself is sufficient to cause some very
nervous quick-thinks, especially during a 'live' war.
However, the common factor in every ban-the-nuke debate, no matter
from which quarter it arises, is that nuclear weapons sap the
economy of a nation and that developing countries really cannot
afford to literally blow up all that moolah. True, nukes are very
expensive. But if that is the issue, no country at any time will
develop weapons of any kind, since there always is a more
productive social cause to spend that money on. Fact: In a pond
already muddied by nukes, survival is a matter of sink or swim.
In the real world, arguments about nuclear cost are immaterial;
the only crucial question is: Do we want a nuclear capability or
not? If the answer is 'yes', we can jolly well find the funds.
(A happy instance: ignoring Mulayam Singh's suggestion that
private sources could be tapped for Agni, Mr I K Gujral said, "No
scientific project would suffer for want of funds." Way to go!) We
can start thriftily, say two warheads a year, and as the economy
grows (it has to, in view of the steady progress of reforms), we
could afford more. If the answer is 'maybe', then we must review
the scenario of a confrontation with a nuclear State -- wherein we
stand an excellent chance of being fried. And if the answer is
'no', we would deserve to be.
But what make me go ballistic are the Prophet-of-Doom reservations
about India's technology base, which are then used as arguments
against our pursuing a nuclear programme. Like, the Prithvi engine
is a reverse-engineered and upscaled SAM-2 engine; like, Agni
failed in 2 out of 3 tests; like, for all the boasts about self-
reliance, it took a Russian consultant to identify the cause of
failure during Agni's second test; like, it's a rotten hybrid of
solid and liquid fuel boosters; like, no military would want such
a system for operational purposes; like, some of the most critical
technologies validated during the third test had West German
parentage...
Well -- SO WHAT? Is there a need to re-invent the wheel? The only
question we need to ask is: No matter from where the base may be
copied, can Indian engineers build their own missiles? What is
the entire industry of Japan based on, pray? Even their
cameras and videos are rooted in German or American prototypes!
Why do even developed countries indulge in industrial espionage,
anyway? Tchchha! Copying is cost-effective as it's cheaper than
developing from scratch, especially if we can reverse-engineer
what's been copied successfully.
As for failure, again, SO WHAT if it was a Russian or a Martian
who identified the snag? The point is that Agni did succeed in
the third test. And even if it failed, once we decide that we
cannot do without the ballistic missile, we just have to learn
from the mistakes and pursue the programme till we perfect it --
as I said before: Sink, or swim. Now, if the project is such a
sham that even our own military does not want it, then I wonder why
the US -- through its propaganda machinery which comes in many slick
forms -- is so eager to shut it down. I should have thought Uncle
Sam would be pleased to play possum and watch us squander away our
wealth!
I tell you, negative, negative, all the time... Because our nuclear
submarine project has been frozen after a colossal cost of $ 250
million since the reactor repeatedly failed, and since the Indian
government refused to fund any more white elephants, should we
simply give up everything and retreat to the Himalayas? (Whoops,
can't even do that -- Chinese nukes await there.) There are
numerous examples of weapons programmes being cancelled all around
the world for lack of funding or results -- it never stopped those
countries! Why us...? The point its detractors seem to be making is:
India shouldn't try because it is certain to fail. Wunderbar.
Where I get totally lost is when people start their socio-
financial babble; it throws a spanner in my attention: Like, India
must concentrate on building its economy, state and society, or,
India needs $ 200 billion in infrastructural investments alone to
sustain a growth rate of 7%, etc, etc. The bottom-line of all
which is that we need foreign investment -- which is unlikely to
materialise in the event of economic sanctions. Of course, why
should anybody unnecessarily run the risk of attracting economic
sanctions? No one denies that we need our economy to grow as fast
as possible and that we need foreign funds. Which is why there's
no need to go gung-ho and tomtom ourselves as a nuclear power.
Told you: mums the word, but carry on building...
The smart thing would be to humour the Western nations as long as
it takes to get the projects in place, entangling them in business
relationships over the next decade or so -- by which time there
would be too many vested interests in the West for their
governments to risk economic sanctions against us. Unfortunately,
the pinkos and swadeshis will not let us breeze through this ideal
plot quite so smoothly.
However, even if we had a nuclear test
tomorrow and sanctions against India were proposed, I seriously
doubt if it would work in the Security Council: The world has
learned a lesson from the Iraq case, in which the US virtually
hijacked the democratic process, leaving key countries - Russia,
China and France -- with only limited options. Partly because of
this, the US finds it difficult to get even its European allies to
impose sanctions on Iran. And India's nothing like that pacific
state, is it?
Sure, I spend a lot of time carping about how important national
prestige is. But when push comes to shove, what matters is not
what the world thinks of us, but what we think of ourselves. If we
have the right goals and pursue them prudently, eventually the
world has to respect us. Holding hands and fluttering eyes can
come later; but even if they don't, what does it matter? I mean,
which country loves China...?
Our first priority should be to make
sure that our civilisation which has survived for five millennia
will not be threatened with extinction by some nukie nutter-
buddies -- for 50 years from now, there's no telling who those might
be. I agree, it's ridiculous to assume that we can test-explode
our way into the Security Council. So let's aim higher -- for
there's no stronger veto power against aggression than a nuclear
counter-strike capability.
Tell us what you think of this column
|