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