Daily Times

In the wake of its gradual contravention by India’s Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar, the No-First-Use policy of the India nuclear doctrine remains uncertain. Parrikar recently expressed personal doubts, “Why should I bind myself? I should say I am a responsible nuclear power and I will not use it irresponsibly.”

His statement set forth a hot debate amongst the global nuclear cognoscenti, especially in South Asia. Evidently, when it comes to India-Pakistan, each and every bit of such intentional or unintentional rhetoric plays a major role in shaping the future relevant moves. The No-First-Use (NFU) policy actually refers to a pledge by a nuclear power not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. It clearly depicts the preemptive mindset of Indian supposedly conscientious nuclear weapons managers or regulators.

It would be pertinent to mention here that this is not the first time that the defence minister has given such a statement. In May 2015, Parrikar also said in New Delhi, “We have to neutralise terrorists through terrorists only. Why can’t we do it? We should do it. You remove a thorn with the help of a thorn.” This was the time when Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders had united in raising their voice on a public platform against the alleged Indian covert operations in Balochistan.

The Defence Minister had also opined about the rethink of Indian submarine building program. He believed that it should increase number of the existing plan of constructing submarines, which was only 24. This was in reference to the existing 30-year submarine building plan that envisages the construction of 24 submarines, including both nuclear and conventional. He had then suggested that India needed a long-term plan till 2050 as the existing plan ended in 2030.

Similarly, India is increasingly heading towards the continuous modernisation of its military as it aspires to become a giant arms trader in the South Asian region. It currently outdoes China as the world’s largest importer of weapons systems, further indicating its intent of modernising its military abilities and demonstrating capabilities beyond South Asia. It is feared that the whole Asian security is fuelling arms trade now as the region has accounted for almost 46 percent of global imports over the past five years. According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), six of the world’s ten largest arms importers are presently located in Asia and Oceania.

The above-mentioned facts and these statements reflect a common approach of challenging a state only to exercise and reiterate India’s colossal nuclear ambitions in South Asia. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace War Studies Program Vice President, George Perkovich, observes that the present state of affairs is to threaten to increase the options available to India to respond to Pakistan with a response if terrorism occurs, which could augment the deterrence of such acts. Consequently, Parrikar’s observations and suggestions were far from crazy.

As India is considered in its media-age as a democracy, the defence minister or the ministry as a whole should not act so asinine. There is always the possibility of security lapses and this should factor in the formation of a national security policy of a country, if it is to be made a sound one.

Does it need to be explained in Parrikar’s next rhetoric that could there be any responsible use of nuclear weapons too? His assertion that India is a responsible nuclear power and will not use nuclear weapons irresponsibly is something irrational or just an attention-grabbing technique is hard to ascertain at the moment.

The writer is associated with the Strategic Vision Institute and can be contacted at beenishaltaf7@gmail.com