These days disarmament is mentioned in the diplomatic and strategic circles with an ironic smile. This so because powerful nations of the world are not even willing to commit themselves to a notional time-frame for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The realists of our world call for a multi-polar world system in which the US, European Union, China, Japan, Russia and India are poles which balance each other. This is more so because the traditional balance of power wars are ruled out in a world of five declared (U.S., Russia, China, France and U.K.) and three undeclared (Israel, Pakistan and India) nuclear weapon powers. It is argued that this multi-polar system will stabilise and ensure international peace and security in a world where weapons of mass-destruction will continue to be a currency of power.

In the afternoon of fifth anniversary of the 1998 Pokhran blast, Gopal Krishna (GK) spoke to K Subramanyam (KS), former Defence Secretary and a noted defence analyst at his residence in Vasantkunj, New Delhi to learn about Indian Nuclear Policy in the aftermath of September 11, Afghanistan war and Gulf War II. He is said to be the brain behind India's unqualified no first use policy.

"On 11 May, India successfully carried out three underground nuclear tests. Two more underground tests on 13 May completed the planned series of tests. I would like this House to join me in paying fulsome tribute to our scientists, engineers and defence personnel whose singular achievements have given us a renewed sense of national pride and self-confidence. In addition to the statement I make, I have also taken the opportunity to submit to the House a paper entitled "Evolution of India's Nuclear Policy", said Atal Bihari Vajpayee on May 27th, 1998.


G K: Has there been any change in Indian nuclear policy in the light of developments after September 11?

K S: No, there has been no change in our policy.

G K: What is Indian stance about disarmament how does Indian policy respond to the imperative of disarmament. Is disarmament still relevant?

K S: The concept of disarmament has fallen into disuse, the concept of "arms control" has come to occupy its place. Disarmament is still relevant but only lip-service is being paid to the concept in various treaties, including the Non-Proliferation (NPT) and Comprehensive Test ban Treaties (CTBT).

The U.N. special sessions on disarmament could not shut its eyes to the reality that more than fifty years after U.N. was founded, the international community has legitimised the nuclear weapon. This was done by extending the so-called NPT unconditionally and indefinitely while the very first U.N. resolution called for disarmament, specifically for the elimination of nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction.

Disarmament is, therefore, not merely an issue of eliminating weapons of common agreement; it is about international power structure, role of military power in that structure and whether nations are willing to move toward a more equitable order or would attempt to perpetuate their relative privileged positions at the expense of the rest of the world.

G K: What has for India in the aftermath of Pokhran nuclear test?

KS: We are taken more seriously. The turning point in the India thinking on disarmament came in 1995. The Non-Proliferation Treaty was an interim arms control measure, though it never succeeded in that role. As long as the treaty had limited duration, it was argued that there was no legitimisation conferred on the nuclear weapons by the treaty, which was only an interim, cold-war measure.

But the indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty by the international community, obtained through a mixture of coercion and persuasion, brought about a radical change on prospects for disarmament.

It proclaimed that nuclear weapons are here to stay and are legitimate for the nuclear powers. The extension of the NPT was followed by the CTBT which only prohibited nuclear test explosions and not development and testing of new weapons without resort to nuclear explosions.

The Canberra Commission's Report is a very diluted version of the Rajiv Gandhi Plan. The appeal, issued by General Lee Butler the former Commandeer of U.S. Strategic Air Command, and sixty other generals, also emphasises the need for progressing meaningfully towards nuclear disarmament.

Some Western nuclear theologians and their followers in India often find a contradiction in the Indian policy of keeping the nuclear option open and advocacy of nuclear disarmament.

They also argue that the India demand for linking up various so-called arms control measures with a time-bound programme for disarmament is unrealistic and the world has to move towards that goal step by step.

There is no contradiction in the Indian advocacy of disarmament and India keeping the nuclear option in a world where the five nuclear powers are able to get the most horrendous weapons of mass-destruction legitimised.

GK: What is India’s position vis-a vis NPT and CTBT

KS: India was never party to NPT and India has rejected CTBT. The NPT has become a new form of colonialism. As the largest nation to become decolonised, India is particularly sensitive to this new form of colonialism and international state terrorism.

We are in era where there is no step by step approaches towards disarmament There has only been step by step approach away from disarmament such as legitimisation of nuclear weapons through unconditional and indefinite extension of NPT.

The irrational nuclear powers are only wasting money on maintaining arsenals they cannot use and are increasing the risk of perpetuation of nuclear terrorism against themselves.

G K: How long can India maintain the position that only if the entire world gives up the nuclear weapons, we will give up these weapons?

KS: We have no other option. What can we do if others are not giving up their options. Campaign for disarmament is nonetheless relevant for universal strategic rationality. India is bound to carry on this campaign even if the road ahead is long and arduous.