By Manisha Ghosh
No first use (NFU) refers to an oath or a strategy by any nuclear power nation not to use its nuclear arsenal unless first attacked by any nuclear weapons from other country. After its second nuclear tests in Pokhran-II, in 1998, India adopted its NFU policy. A draft of the doctrine, in August 1999, avowed that Indian nuclear weapons are exclusively for deterrence and will only be used in case of retaliation.
The draft doctrine of 1999 that was published a year later says that “The fundamental purpose of Indian nuclear weapons is to deter the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any State or entity against India, and its forces. India will not be the first to initiate a nuclear strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.” It also added that “every effort shall be made to persuade other States possessing nuclear weapons to join an international treaty banning first use.”
India took the pledge of ‘no first use’. It was codified in India’s 2003 nuclear doctrine which portrays India’s nuclear weapons will be applied as a “credible minimum deterrent,” and will only be used in vengeance against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere in the world. A caveat was later amended in the dogma that states “In the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.”
Before the 2014 election and subsequent victory to lead the world’s largest democracy, Narendra Modi said, “No first use was a great initiative by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. There is no compromise on that. We are very clear. ‘No first use’ is a reflection of our cultural inheritance.” But, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto for the 2014 elections clearly depicts to ‘revise and update India’s nuclear doctrine’ if required.
Nevertheless, things tend to change after 2014 when the BJP government was formed with huge major majority of seats in the parliament and was led by the charismatic leader- Narendra Modi as Indian Prime Minister. In 2016, in only two years of the neophyte government the then Defense minister Manohar Parrikar had made a brawny statement- “Why should I bind myself? I should say I am a responsible nuclear power and I will not use it irresponsibly. This is my (personal) thinking.”
Although the defense ministry spokesperson, a day later, defended the Defense Minister’s avowal by issuing a clarification that depicted the comment as Parrikar’s personal opinion quoting- “What he said was that India, being a responsible power, should not get into first-use debate. But once again, it is clarified that this was his personal opinion,” the option of waiving of the barrier was well impregnated in the thinking of the BJP led government.
India, in recent times, may notice an imperative swing doing away with its NFU doctrine. On August 16, 2019, the current Indian Defense Minister, Rajnath Singh said- “.Till today, our nuclear policy is ‘No First Use’. What happens in future depends on the circumstances” Outstandingly, the defense minister stated those strong words in the land of Pokhran, the site where India’s nuclear tests triggered. The day of this proclamation is also significant- it the first death anniversary of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who dared to conduct the nuclear tests under the nose of USA amidst huge risks of international sanctions.
Rajnath, in presence of Army Chief General Bipin Rawat affirmed “Pokhran is the area which witnessed Atalji’s firm resolve to make India a nuclear power and yet remain firmly committed to the doctrine of ‘no first use’. India has strictly adhered to this doctrine. What happens in future depends on the circumstances.” However, Rajnath suggested that this stature may not sacrosanct ignited extreme speculation in the currently delicate Indo-Pak tensions in the wake of abrogation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
The following absence of any clarification from the government lent weight to the view that the comments of the current Defense Minister were well-considered unlike his predecessor, late Manohar Parrikar. Though vague, but it can easily be speculated from the current scenario of the Defense Minister’s comment and the silence of the government that Rajnath had been indeed authorized to make such a crucial comment in public and that too would be directed to India’s western neighbor Pakistan who is very aggressive in its rhetoric upon the revocation of Article 370 and sub-article 35 regarding the special status of India’s northern state Jammu and Kashmir and subsequent bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories- J&K and Ladakh.
Rajnath through his statement might also be portraying that India is not going to succumb to nuclear blackmail or by Pakistan’s view that its munitions will dissuade New Delhi from using its predictable forces. Pakistan has always maintained a firm ambiguity over its red lines and clearly signaled that its nukes are intended for India and yet not stepped down nor agreed to NFU, keeping the world in guess that Pakistan might use its nukes if provoked in the battlefield. Henceforth, Singh in the eve of closed door meeting addressing the ‘Jammu and Kashmir’ issue in the UN security council might have made the statement in response to the proliferating Pakistan-sponsored cross border terrorism, that places the burgeoning conflict in a sphere altogether.
The statement invites severe criticism from the opposition party, mainly by Congress which stated that this kind or irresponsible statement in the media will malign India’s stand in the international forum and might represent India as a betrayer to the society. However, the National Security Advisor, Shivshankar Menon, during the Congress government itself counterfeited the current stand saying that the posture although best suit our India’s goals, yet the doctrine should evolve and adapt in relation to the strategic thinking. In short, one should realize, there is a jeopardy that the minister’s comment could ignite a nuclear arms race given the strategic paranoias that is prevailing in South Asia for half a century.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights)
Image Credit: ©AP Photo