nastiafan4@gmail.

com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
POLITICS FOR INDIA
UNITED NATIONS

United nations was not created to create heaven on earth, but to prevent it from
becoming hell.
Dag Hammarskjöld

Objective of United Nations

As mentioned in the preamble, the envisaged role of UN is to save the succeeding generations from the
scourge of war. It also aims to promote the respect for human rights, recognition of equality of status of
nations, big or small, social progress and better standard of life in larger freedom.
The three pillars of UN system are 1) Protection of World Peace. 2) Protection of Human Rights. 3)
Promotion of development.

Actual record
The actual record of UN has to be measured with respect to the United Nations achievements in realizing
the core objectives.

1] UN’s achievement in maintaining peace.

Unfortunately because of east and west con ict, UN could not take any effective role in its prime objective.
Collective security has remained paralyzed and at present, the commitment of countries for peacekeeping is
weakening. UN could not play any effective role towards the resolution of crisis. E.g. in Korean Peninsula,
Between India and Pakistan. Even the Palestinian issue remains unresolved.

nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 1
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450
POLITICS FOR INDIA
INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL

According to C Rajamohan, Indo US civil nuclear agreement is not just a commercial agreement but an
agreement with huge geopolitical signi cance. It is above all the recognition of India as a major power, it
legitimizes India’s nuclear weapons, it establishes India as a responsible player in international politics.

What is the agreement?

It ends nuclear apartheid against India. The apartheid was created by USA. It was reaction against
Pokhran I. USA had established NSG to prohibit nuclear commerce with India. USA had also set up MTCR
(Missile Technology Control Regime) to check that India does not develop the launching capacity. Indian
organizations like ISRO, DRDO were under the entity list prohibiting commerce with international
community. It was because of USA’s policies India could not develop its 3 phase nuclear program, to make it
commercially viable. Though India could develop some indigenous technologies, but failed to develop some
sophisticated technologies. Throughout cold war, India and USA were in opposite leagues. Since Indian
economy was inward economy, the sole focus of USA’s South Asia policy was preventing nuclear
proliferation. Thus pressurizing India to sign NPT.

What is special about the deal?

USA walked extra mile to make India US partnership truly strategic. The biggest achievement of Indo-US
strategic partnership. It also shows the qualitative change that has come in the relations.
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 12
What USA promised?
1] Full civil nuclear cooperation including the transfer of technology, that includes reprocessing technology.
2] USA will make serious efforts to bring India in all arms control regimes like NSG, MTCR etc.
3] USA will bring changes in the domestic laws.
4] USA will get India speci c waiver from NSG guidelines.

What were India’s obligations?

1] India will continue moratorium on further testing.
2] India will work with USA to bring FMCT in existence.
3] India will sign ‘facility speci c safeguard agreement’ with IAEA. [Under NPT, non nuclear weapon states
have to sign comprehensive safeguard. i.e. All of their nuclear facilities under IAEA inspection regime. What
is special about India? Only civilian …. ]
4] India will sign convention on supplementary compensation (CSC). It is to set the guidelines for nuclear
commerce, especially the liability laws.

Signing the compensation allows country, access to global nancial institutions for the purpose of nuclear
commerce.
India will bring the liability law which will x ‘the civil liabilities’ in case of nuclear damages.

From India’s side, all the obligations were ful lled but there was objection of USA with respect to section 17
and section 46 of Indian liability law.

What is section 17?

Right to recourse. In case of nuclear tragedy, operator will pay a liability to the people, after that it can ask
the compensation from the supplier.
In above case, suppliers are the American corporates. Why USA had objection? Indian law applies for all
countries. Other countries like Russia and France didn’t had objection. Why USA had objection? 1. In
Russia, the exporter is Govt., whereas in case of USA, exporters are private parties. Hence they may not be
able to bear the expenses. 2. Russians are con dent about their nuclear reactors, safest and tested. USAs
nuclear reactors are not tested. 3. According to USA, Indian law is not in accordance to global norms. India
follows ‘strict and no fault liability’. It means there will be no excuse in case of accident. The only excuse is
in two situations. 1_Accident because of civil war. 2_Accident because of attack by hostile state.
Total amount of liability – 300 mn SDRs. 1 SDR is roughtly equal to 87 rs. Thus total liabilities will be Rs.
2610 crores. How much supplies has to pay? Out of this amount, Rs 1500 crores is the maximum amount
which operator will pay (govt. of India). Rest will be paid by Govt. of India.
Rs 1500 crore paid by Indian operator will have recourse from supplier.
Prime Minister Modi entered into another deal to resolve the issue. Modi govt. proposed Insurance
mechanism. At present, GICRe will be the insurance agency. Govt. of India will contribute the initial fund of
750 crores. Both suppliers and operator will take insurance policy and they will pay the premiums.

Section 46 of ‘Liability law’.

This was bigger concern for USA. So far the dispute has not been resolved. Section 46 suggests that there
will be liabilities other than civil liabilities. e.g. Liability under any other law, criminal law, tort law. USA has
objection that the liabilities should not go beyond civil liabilities. During Obama’s visit in 2015, Prime
Minister Modi gave explanation that section 46 does not apply to suppliers.

Views of legal experts. Whether sec. 46 will apply or not will depend upon how Supreme Court interpret
the provision.
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 13
What was the basis of Modi’s explanation? He referred to the debate in Indian parliament over the
liability law. When bill was debated, one of the member proposed that section 46 should include the liability
of supplier clearly. This amendment was not accepted in the parliament.
* Non acceptance of the amendment does not mean that section 46 excludes suppliers. It can be interpreted
to include suppliers. Amendment was defeated not because amendment was wrong but because it lacked
the majority.

Copyright © 2019 Politics for India

nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 14
POLITICS FOR INDIA
INDIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE
India’s position on nuclear question has been full of contradictions.

Views of Pandit Nehru.

He called nuclear weapons as satanic. Gandhi called nuclear weapons as most diabolical use of science.
India formed NAM. One of the major agenda of NAM was to oppose nuclear arms race.
However according to Stephen P. Cohen, Nehru’s atomic energy program was never entirely peaceful.

What reasons can be given?

1] India’s atomic energy program was made secret, beyond the purview of press.
2] Home Jahangir Bhabha was made the head of the program, he had made it clear that he was not
against the development of nuclear weapons for India’s defense.
3] George Perkovich through his research has shown that Pandit Nehru did recognize the importance of
nuclear weapons for India’s defense.

Views of C Rajamohan.
May be India’s position on nuclear weapons was a puzzle for international community, however Indian
leaders were very much fearful about possessing nuclear weapons. If for international community, the
puzzle was whether India will acquire nuclear weapon or not, the only dilemma which Indian leaders faced
was not whether India will acquire but when acquire. Thus the right time to posses nuclear weapons was a
critical issue.
India conducted its 1st peaceful nuclear explosion, titled ‘Smiling Buddha’ in 1974. India had to face
sanctions against its nuclear program after the testing.

C Raja Mohan Vipin Narang

nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 15
According to Prof. Vipin Narang
It is not clear as to why Indian elites waited for so long and why they had chosen the year 1998 to declare
itself as nuclear weapon state.

C Rajamohan in his book CROSSING THE RUBICON has explained the reason for the testing in 1998.
What was the reason? Indian elites knew that there will be economic sanctions against India but they
could make the calculation that the time has come when international community cannot continue with
sanctions for long. Why? The attraction for Indian economy. The changed nature of India-US relations
where USA started looking at India as a swing state. US strategists felt that nuclear India is better balancer
than non-nuclear India.

Prof. Vipin Narang has also raised the question as to why Indians took long time to release its of cial
doctrine. The draft nuclear doctrine was introduced in 1998, Indian strategic expert K Subramaniam is a
architect of India’s draft nuclear doctrine. Govt. of India had released the formal doctrine on 4th January
2003. All features of India’s nuclear doctrine are not made public, hence the secrecy of nuclear doctrine give
reason to international community to be unsure about India’s approach to nuclear weapons. So far India
has maintained lot of secrecy and ambiguity.

What are the salient features of India’s nuclear doctrine and what are the debates
associated with it?
The doctrine explains India’s posture and rationale behind acquiring nuclear weapons. The doctrine is
based on ‘defensive realism’ and re ects India’s paci c culture. According to Raja Menan, India’s nuclear
doctrine re ect not so much of India’s strategic choice, it rather re ects India’s culture.
According to Rajesh Basrur, India’s nuclear doctrine is as per India’s strategic culture. (Strategic culture
means – defensive culture.

Features of nuclear doctrine of India.

1] No rst use.
However later on it has been clari ed that in case there is a use of chemical or biological weapons on Indian
territory and Indian forces anywhere, govt. has an option to use nuclear weapon.
Ambiguity also emerged because former national security advisor Shivshankar Menon in one of his
speeches mentioned that ‘No rst use posture is only against non-nuclear weapon states’. However later on
he retreated under of cial pressure.
2] India will maintain credible minimum deterrence. It means India will go for development of second strike
capacity i.e. buidling nuclear triad.
3] In case of nuclaer attack on Indian territory and Indian forces, India will respond by massive retaliation.
4] Command and control of nuclear weapons will be under civilian authority.
5] Despite acquiring nuclear weapons, nuclear doctrine mentions that India continues to believe that Indian
security is served better in nuclear weapon free world, India will continue to work for disarmament.
6] No use against non nuclear states.

Debates on India’s nuclear doctrine.

nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 16
BJP in its manifesto of 2014 election mentioned that if they will come to power, they will change ‘no rst
use’ to ‘ rst use’. This has led to the beginning of debate among the scholars over the policy of no rst use.
There are arguments for and against.

Arguments in favour of rst use.

1] Strategists like Bharat Karnard favour rst use policy.
2] No rst use is relevant only for the country that has extreme con dence in the survivability of its nuclear
forces. No rst use requires ef cient ‘crisis management’. Ef cient crisis management is not the forte of
India. Indian bureaucracy is manifestly incapable of crisis management.
3] Views of Former Lt. General B. S. Nagal. Former commander in chief of strategic forces command.
No rst use is morally wrong, it puts our population under huge threat. There is no logic to accept large
scale destruction in the rst strike.

Arguments against rst use.

3] Views of Shivashankar Menan. In his book CHOICES: INSIDE THE MAKING OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY
has given reference to the views of K Subramaniam who held that deterrence is all about perception rather
than posture. The rst use posture may be highly provocative. It may force country to attack to save itself
from attack, no rst use is better for deterrence.
4] According to Shivashankar Menan, rst use policy would destabilize the security environment in South
Asia. What is important is survivability. He gives the example of China. Despite asymmetry with USA,
China maintains no rst use. Thus has credible deterrence.
5] Views of Manpreet Sethi. No rst use policy has following advantages.
No need to have expensive nuclear weapon infrastructure. Onus of escalation is on adversary. There is no
need to keep nuclear forces on trigger. India can keep the weapons in disassembled form, no need to build
security system required to prevent unauthorized use.First use capabilities require huge investment in
research and development, at present India does not have that much capacity.
Rakesh Sood. India does not have actual capacity to handle the complexities and expenditures involved in
rst use. No rst use re ect India’s traditional abhorrence towards nuclear weapons.

There is also a debate over India’s position that India will maintain ‘credible minimum deterrence’. It has
been held that India should declare what is minimum. The purpose of including the term ‘credible minimum
deterrence’ is ambiguous.

What can be the purpose of ‘credible minimum deterrence from India’s

viewpoint?
To communicate the adversaries that India is not in arms race. However once India does not disclose what
is minimum, it is natural for Pakistan to go for acquiring more and more weapons, ssile material to
maintain the credibility of its deterrence.
1] Former ambassador Jayant Prasad suggest that instead of credible minimum deterrence, India should go
for minimum credible deterrence.
2] According to K Subramaniam, credibility has no relation with number. Credibility depends on the
command, control and ability to respond. Hence credible minimum deterrence is the right posture.
3] According to the experts like Raja Menan, the biggest challenge is administrative. There is a lack of
coordintion among different departments. There are also infrastructural issues which put questionmark on
our ability of 2nd strike.z
4] As India is acquiring Agni 5, INS Arihant, Triumf S400, INS Chakra (Akula), India is moving to build
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 17
credible deterrence and 2nd strike capability.
5There is also a debate on the doctrine of ‘massive retaliation’. Massive retaliation denotes targeting
civilians. India should go for exible response. India should go for ‘counter force strike’ rather than ‘counter
value strike’.

It has been emphasized that India should focus more on crisis management, surviability, building nuclear
triad, addressing the loopholes, developing infrastructure rather than changing to rst use. India is the only
nuclear armed country which lacks a permanent chief of defence staff. It is necessary to introduce the post
for better command and coordination. According to P K Chari, nuclear doctrines need not to be static, it
should be a work in progress. If needed, required changes should be made. According to him, there was no
need for India to go for ‘no rst use’ when according to Indian leadership, the purpose of nuclear weapons
was to achieve deterrence against China. When India has no rst use, It does not give enough deterrence,
there is a huge probability of conventional war. Like Pakistan India needed 1st use approach against China.
Similarly he suggests that we have used our nuclear weapons to gain deterrence only in case of nuclear
attack whereas Pakistan’s nuclear weapons give it deterrence in all conditions. i.e. from conventional to
proxy war and from proxy war to nuclear war. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are explicitly for military
purposes. India’s nuclear weapons are primarily for political purposes. (Permanent seat in UNSC).

India’s position on Disarmament

India has always made the posture for comprehensive, veri able, universal disarmament. India has utilized
he platforms of NAM and UNGA. In 1988, Rajiv Gandhi presented ‘Rajiv Gandhi action plan’. It was widely
appreciated by international community.
Features of it.
Time bound elimination of nuclear weapons.
Countries should adopt phased approach. (3 stages) and in stage there will be veri cation.
Countries should take binding commitments.

Copyright © 2019 Politics for India

nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 18
POLITICS FOR INDIA
INDIA WEST ASIA RELATIONS

Overall analysis of India’s policy

West Asia is most sensitive region of International politics. Why? Former vice president Hamid Ansari, in his
article TRAVELLING THROUGH THE CONFLICT suggests that the strategic importance of West Asia lies in
its geography, its essential resources. However he points that West Asia suffers from the curse of
centrality.

West Asia suffers from the curse of centralityHamid Ansari, Former Vice President of India.

Importance for India

C Rajamohan explains India’s foreign policy strategy in form of 3 concentric circles.
1_Immediate neighbourhood.
2_Extended neighbourhood &
3_The outside world
West Asia is in the second concentric circle. West Asia is not just a gas station for India, it has huge
strategic importance.

Views of Alfred T Mahan.

He advised British India to focus on West Asia to maintain the hegemony of British empire. India’s security
is linked to peace and stability in West Asia.

What has been India’s policy in West Asia?

One of the earliest decisions on foreign policy matters taken by independent India was related to West Asia
i.e. The creation of Israel. What was India’s view of creation of Israel? Indian leaders opposed the
creation because of Pakistan factor. India was against making religion the basis of statehood. India took
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 19
pro-palestinian approach. It is generally believed that there is a domestic determinant of India’s stand on
palestinian issue i.e. The sentiments of Muslim minorities in India.

Views of Ishrat Aziz

The foreign policy of any country including India is based on national interest. It was purely secular
consideration. What? India knew that creation of Israel will destabilize the entire middle east. Instability
create security threat for India. It is a wrong assumption that the sentiments of Muslims shaped India’s west
Asia policy. It is to be noted that unlike USA where there are different lobbies, there is no Muslim lobby in
India, directing India’s foreign policy. India’s foreign policy so far has been conducted in the framework of
non-alignment. West Asia is the best place where India could successfully pursue non-alignment. India
could maintain good relations with Iran, Israel as well as Gulf countries. This shows that even for West
Asian countries, religion is not a consideration. At present, Gulf countries are strengthening their relations
with India even at the cost of Pakistan. Reason is, they are looking at India as an opportunity. e.g. Saudi
Arabia wants to diversify its economy rather than just relying on oil exports. Gulf countries are looking at
India as a net security provider. India is also a source of cheap labour. India has huge cultural capital,
diaspora in the region. //30% of UAE population is Indian. (3.5 million).

Former Ambassador Ranjit Gupta described India’s policy as ‘non interventionist, non judgemental, non
prescriptive and non alignment’. India has stayed away from taking sides in Local con icts. What should
be India’s policy in West Asia? West Asia is a highly challenging area because of numerous fault lines. It is
not easy to navigate through ‘the choppy waters’ of the politics in West Asia. So far India has done well.
India could protect its interests, even none of the non state actors in West Asia have directly targeted
against India.

There are two schools of thought in India.

1) Continue the traditional policy. Maintain low pro le.

Prof. Girijesh Pant – West Asia is not a place for display of India’s power. It is a place for augmentation of
India’s power.

Former Ambassador Ranjit Gupta – Our policy should be based on the mature recognition of the limits of
our capabilities. India’s passivity is ne in unpredictable and volatile environment. If speech is silver, silence
is golden.

2) India should play more proactive role.

Former foreign secretary S Jaishankar (@ Raisina dialogue). India’s foreign policy should change in
accordance to its changed status. India should be a leading power and not just a balancing power. India’s
‘think west’ shall match match India’s ‘act east’.
According to him, up till now our foreign policy towards West Asia was free from ‘strategic calculations’
driven by market than by strategic interest. However now we are consolidating the partnership.

C Rajamohan – After many false starts, India is emerging as the swing state. India has potential to shape
the outcomes on many critical issues.

Chinmaya Gharekhan – India should leave the passive approach and should raise its ‘diplomatic pro le’.

Nicolas Blarel – Article RECALIBRATING INDIA’S MIDDLE EAST POLICY. // Expert on India Israel
relationship.
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 20
India is a linked to the region through culture, commerce and colonialism. India needs multiple
engagements. Under Modi govt. India is able to overcome its attitude of looking at West Asia through the
prism of Pakistan.

Achievement in ‘look west.’

Though there is a impression that Look East is the most successful initiative but actually from the very
beginning, Look West has been successful. Still India’s trade with South East Asia is much less than the
bilateral trade India has with Gulf Countries ($ 200 bn).

1. Gulf countries
Up till now India has neglected Saudi Arabia, UAE but we have entered into the strategic partnership. Even
India does have good relations with Qatar. Prime Minister visited even Qatar.

2. Iran
PM tried to consolidate relations with Iran also. However India Iran relations have never reached to its
optimal potential. The reason is Iran’s aspiration to become the leader in the Muslim world compels Iran to
take pro-Pakistan approach in Kashmir. Iran is also fearful of Saudi Arabia loosing Pakistan to create
instability. India’s compulsions to have closer relations with USA make it dif cult for India to maintain equity
in the relations. According to Iranian diplomat’s New Delhi’s Qiblah is Washington. According to PM Modi,
there is a huge potential. Once we make up our mind, distance is just half a step.

3. Israel
India always had close relations with Israel. However the relationship has not been open. Nehru’s policy
towards Israel was ‘recognition without relations’. Nehru took extremely pro-palestinian stand. It used to be
said that Nehru tried to look more Arab than the Arabs themselves. Much before India, Egypt, Jordan
recognized Israel. Israel has always provided critical help in India’s war against Pakistan. Israel’s help was
critical in Kargil war. It was during the time of Narsimha Rao in 1992 that we established full diplomatic
relations. Now across the party consensus is to maintain close relations with Israel. What is new in Modi’s
approach? RSS has always been in favour of close relations with Israel. Vajpeyi called Israel as a natural
ally. Modi has personal chemistry with Bibi Netanyahu. They believed that India – Israel marriage was made
in heaven.

The basic difference in Congress and BJP’s approach is, Congress’s approach was to keep the relations in
closet. It used to be said that Palestine is like a wife and Israel is like a mistress. There is always more love
for mistress but person walks with wife. Israel was not happy with the status of mistress hence Modi govt.
has brought the relations in public.

According to C Rajamohan, Modi’s approach is transparent and more con dent. There was no need to hide
closeness with Israel. Is Israel India’s natural ally? 1) Israel is critical for conventional and non-
conventional security of India. India can get high technology weapons at a much cheaper prize. 2) Israel
has expertise in servicing Soviet weapons. 3) Israel has expertise in controlling cross border terrorism. 4)
Israel is also important for food security. It has expertise in dryland farming.

However we cannot say Israel as India’s natural ally. 1) Gulf countries are in our closer neighbourhood. 2)
Gulf provides huge remittances, energy, diaspora. We cannot pursue our relations with Israel at the cost of
Gulf. We should not ignore the fact that Bibi Netanyahu uses similar terminologies for China. Israel also has
nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 21
 huge partnership with China. They are also giong for joint production. Israel’s approach towards India is
‘transactional’ and not even strategic. According to Nicolas Blarel, the strategic partnership is a rhetoric. No
scope for natural ally, they are placed in different security situations. They do not even have common
enemies. There are ‘obvious constraints’ on their strategic relations and regional pressures over India will
prevent India from taking neutral position. However India’s stand on Palestine is diluting because 1)
Palestinian issue is now an orphan. 2) Muslim world itself is divided. Hence India can be more pragmatic in
its approach.

4. Turkey
India never had good relations with Turkey. Turkey showered all of her love for Pakistan because 1) Turkey’s
aspiration to be a leader in Muslim world. 2) Turkey has been a US ally. 3) Turkey also has been semi-
authoritarian with huge in uence of military. However Modi govt. tried to restart engagements. It is said
that diplomacy is ‘converting friends into allies, neutrals into friends and adversaries into neutrals’. However
Modi has played ‘hardball diplomacy’. Turkey is always critical of India’s approach towards Pakistan, hence
India invited the president of Cyprus before the visit of the president of Turkey. There is nothing wrong if
India reminds Turkey that it does not live in glass house and has messy relations with its neighbours.

Diplomacy is converting friends into allies, neutrals into friends and adversaries
into neutrals’.A popular saying.

Copyright © 2019 Politics for India

nastiafan4@gmail.com 9797788450 22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)