Parrikar Is Right In Keeping India’s Nuclear Policy Ambiguous; In Fact, He Is Duty-Bound To Do So

“Dread is at the heart of successful nuclear deterrence,” wrote Bharat Karnad, a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, in his 21 November column, ‘More, Mr Parrikar’, for the Indian Express. Karnad made a strong case for more opacity, more ambiguity and more unpredictability in the sphere of discussing India’s nuclear capabilities and philosophy.

Clarifying India’s nuclear issues, Karnad argued, will make it easy for its adversaries – “as much the obvious ones — China and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan — as the “friendly” countries, such as the US” – to measure out the country’s political will and read its strategic intentions.

If we tread back briefly to a recent time, we see that the country’s defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, has been doing exactly as Karnad argues. Speaking at the launch of Brigadier (retd) Gurmeet Kanwal’s book The New Arthashastra, Parrikar said over a week ago:

This ‘personal remark’ of Parrikar’s ruffled quite a few feathers within and outside the country’s borders. Because, conventionally, India’s No First Use (NFU) policy is a part of its nuclear doctrine. India has also said decisively that it won’t be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. Parrikar’s casual questioning of a long-held philosophy pertaining to the use of nuclear weapons, naturally, set the cat among the pigeons, especially in news agencies and think tanks in different corners. It even prompted The News International, a Pakistan daily, to publish a report “India going back on ‘no-first-use nuke’ stance”, suggesting that India was departing from its 18-year-old position. And even some Indian reports questioned the wisdom of Parrikar’s move.

In addition, in light of Washington think thanks, Karnad said in his column, “...it is pertinent to note that besides its intelligence agencies, Washington has always relied on American think-tankers and gullible Indians to help winkle out details of the Indian nuclear deterrent.” These think tanks too may not have felt all that comfortable with Parrikar’s ‘personal opinion’.

So the trajectory that Parrikar is taking is justified, or even good for that matter. As Karnad wrote, Parrikar is not just under an obligation to keep our nuclear policy ambiguous but is mandated as country’s defence minister to “keep confounding assessments regarding India’s deterrent.” That is, quite frankly, the best form of nuclear deterrence, and a smart way forward for India.