 India's thermonuclear explosions of 1998 were below par, claims a responsible Indian official. Does this mean the country will carry out more tests to fine-tune its nuclear programme?The recent explosive revelation by a senior official of India's premier defence organisation - the Defence Research and Develop-ment Organization (DRDO) - that Pokhran nuclear tests in 1998 were a dud and not as successful as projected to the world has put New Delhi in a catch-22 situation. The revelation was made by none else but the official who played a key role in orchestrating India's nuclear programme.
The statement by K.Santhanam, a top nuclear scientist directly associated with India's nuclear programme, has stirred a hornet's nest in the scientific community and political circles of India.
India conducted five nuclear tests on May 11 and 13, 1998, at the Pokhran range in the western state of Rajasthan. These included a 45-kiloton (kt) thermonuclear device, also called a hydrogen bomb. Other tests on May 11 included a 15-kt fission device and a 0.2-kt sub-kiloton device. The two simultaneous nuclear tests on May 13 were also in the sub-kiloton range - 0.5 and 0.3 kt.
Says Santhanam, the yield of thermonuclear explosions was below par and hence not sufficient to meet India's strategic needs. The scientist's contention is that since India still needs to carry out more tests to fine-tune its nuclear programme; it should not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Many Western seismic experts, too, had challenged India's claim of a 60-kiloton (kt) yield on May 11 and 700 tons on May 13, 1998. They calculated that the output was about 10-15 kt on the first day and about 100 tons later. US intelligence then had assessed that India's claim of testing a "thermonuclear device" was no more than a hydrogen bomb.
The latest revelations have hit like a whiplash at New Delhi as it was all out to impress the world with its newfound nuclear prowess. The "dud tests" theory has also added to New Delhi's as it implies that India requires additional nuclear testing for its programme to gain credibility.
This will obviously be anathema to America as the India-US nuclear agreement comes with a clear caveat - that another nuclear test would lead to its abrogation. Foreign policy pundits point out that the nuclear deal is premised on a waiver to the US Atomic Energy Act which bars nuclear trade between the US and countries that are not signatories to the NPT. This waiver covers only Indian nuclear tests until May 13, 1998. Any fresh tests would bring the ban on nuclear trade into immediate force.
Santhanam's assertion might mess up things for India on the CTBT issue too. The treaty has gathered immense significance under Obama who is keen to push the treaty through the senate. If it does, India will again face the same dilemma it did before the Pokhran tests - to test or not to test, analysts say.
Once the CTBT is ratified in the US Congress, probably within a few months, every other country will toe the line. India, which maintains that it will not come on board, will then seem recalcitrant if it goes against the tide of world opinion.
But more than anything else, this development might undermine India's much-vaunted claim of possessing a world-class nuclear deterrence capability. It also riddles holes in New Delhi's nuclear force claims, as the idea behind the Pokhran tests was to tell the world that India possessed a credible nuclear deterrent.
Pakistan reacted sharply to the revelation saying "We are disturbed by media reports that India might be considering to conduct additional (nuclear) tests." Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit told a weekly news briefing in Islamabad recently that Pakistan is opposed to any arms race in South Asia.
"We have proposed a regional restraint regime, including a regional nuclear test ban treaty. The proposal is still on the table. We hope a unilateral moratorium on testing in the region will continue to be observed," Basit added.
Analysts in South Asia view increased US interest in India to turn it into not only a regional but a world power has come closer to the detriment of countries in the region that are already wary of India's hegemonic attitude and designs.
New Delhi's ambition of dominance stems from ancient scholar Kautilya's masterpiece statecraft - Arthashastra - wherein he advises rulers to treat "every neighbouring state as an enemy and the enemy's enemy as a friend".
This mind-set is also evident from India's first premier Jawaharlal Nehru's often quoted statement "India could not play an inferior role in the world. It should either be a superpower or disappear". Nehru's successors to-date have blatantly applied this dictum to carve its dominance in the region.
China's People's Daily in its recent issue accused India of "becoming more narrow-minded and intolerable" as it wants to step into the boot of "British colonialism" which covered present-day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh as well as Nepal.
"India - a previous victim of colonialism and hegemony is dreaming to develop its own hegemony," the daily quipped, saying "obsessed with such mentality, India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues, and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbours like Pakistan."
India, which vows to be a superpower, needs to have its eyes on relations with neighbours and abandon the recklessness and arrogance as the world is undergoing earthshaking changes. For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower, the Daily stressed.
South Asians are victim of inter-state and intra-state conflicts. The United States instead of encouraging conflict management entailing conflict resolution between the South Asian states is supporting the military dominance and hegemonic aspirations of India, Kimball writes adding Washington's approach encourages Indian domineering mind-set in South Asia and forces the smaller actors to chalk out asymmetrical warfare strategies for their sovereign existence.
India's sophisticated and lethal weapons' shopping spree included $30 billion for purchase of tanks and planes and $100 billion worth nuclear installations. Analysts also point out that India since independence built 24 massive complexes for producing nuclear energy but failed to lit a single village while claiming to make India self reliant in energy.
India acquired AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) from Israel in May 2009, which is set to alter the dimension of see-through capability of Indian Air Force (IAF).The induction of nuclear-powered submarine INS Arihant (slayer of enemies) has enhanced Indian Navy's offensive operational capability, jeopardising the security paradigm in the Arabian Sea and threatening Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries of the region. This nuclear-powered submarine is fitted with India's K-15 ballistic missiles that can be launched from under water with the capacity to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.
Pakistan's Navy Chief Admiral Noman Bashir said India's launch of a nuclear-powered submarine has affected the security balance in Arabia Sea, as the sea is highly vital for the entire world. The INS Arihant launch, he told media during his recent visit to Beijing, has changed the security situation of the Arabia Sea, adding that Pakistan does not want to pursue the arms race; it has its own priorities.
He said the Arabian Sea is a main means to link East with West and for oil supply, adding myriads vessels daily pass through it; therefore, it is highly important not only for Pakistan or China, but also for the whole world to safeguard the Arabian sea.
"Pakistan is against monopoly on this marine region. This is the responsibility of the entire world to ensure peace and security of Arabian Sea", he said.
With the Indo-US nuclear agreement and AWACS acquisition from Israel, Indo-US-Israel nexus is now obvious. US's ‘arc of instability' just gets bigger, writes Asia Times Syndicate analyst Pepe Escobar. The New Great Game unfolds the Pentagon-coined "arc of instability" from the Horn of Africa to western China. The underlying logic is divide and rule.
Split up Iraq - blocking China's access to Iraqi oil. Split up Pakistan - with an independent Balochistan preventing China from accessing the strategic port of Gwadar there. Split up Afghanistan - with an independent Pashtunistan allowing the building of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline bypassing Russia. Split up Iran - by financing subversion in Khuzestan and Sistan-Balochistan, Escober points out saying why not split up Bolivia (as was attempted a year ago) to the benefit of US energy giants. Call it the (splitting) Kosovo model, Escobar quips.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
