HVK Archives: Disarmament logic - Learning from Nehru's nuclear vision
Disarmament logic - Learning from Nehru's nuclear vision - The Times of India
N M Ghatate
()
September 18, 1998
Title: Disarmament logic - Learning from Nehru's nuclear vision
Author: N M Ghatate
Publication: The Times of India
Date: September 18, 1998
Disarmament is not synonymous with arms control. All measures
aimed to tame or stop the arms race or restrict the use of arms
fall under the scope of arms control, while measures aimed at
reducing military capability fall under the scope of disarmament.
For example, proposals to ban nuclear tests or stop the
production of nuclear weapons are arms control measures, while
proposals to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons are disarmament
measures.
Ever since independence, India has advocated the elimination of
nuclear weapons and has made it a principal objective of its
disarmament policy. This writer was fortunate that Jawaharlal
Nehru granted him time in October 1962 in connection with his
research project on "Disarmament in India's Foreign Policy".
Nehru's views on various aspects of the disarmament problem are
relevant even today.
Our goal, said Nehru, is to destroy nuclear weapons. There can be
no compromise on this question because their use will not only be
a war against one country or a group of countries but against the
entire creation. There is no effective protection against
radiation hazard which the nuclear explosions cause. The United
Nations has recently endorsed the position that India has been
advocating since the mid-fifties. It has also been stated that
the radiation effects of nuclear explosions affect people far
away from the place of explosion, and what is more, they might
affect even future generations. Their use will effect the entire
life on earth of which we are a part. Even if India is not
involved in such a war and we pursue the policy of non-alignment,
we will suffer. The fate of the entire planet is at stake.
Balance of Power
Nehru further clarified: "I did not favour the recent American
proposals that the question whether the international peace force
will possess nuclear arms in a disarmed world will be decided
after special studies. I don't think studies are needed to decide
this matter. We know that the use of these weapons amounts to
genocide. If the international peace force is allowed to punish
the violator of peace with these weapons, many innocents will
die. Due to radiation innocent people in that country, people of
other countries and future generations will be harmed. Because of
these reasons, I do not think nuclear weapons have any place in
the disarmed world".
This writer further sought clarification on why Nehru was so
concerned about nuclear disarmament, despite the history of the
post-World War Two period showing that nuclear weapons had proved
to be a restraining factor on the policies of the great powers.
And to support the contention made in the query, this writer
cited the Korean, Lebanese and the Hungarian crises in which one
great power having entered the crisis, the other condemned such
interference but stayed out. Nehru replied:
End of Everything
"It is true so far that nuclear weapons have restrained the
policies of the great powers and they have prevented a world war.
But no one can guarantee that their policies will be restrained
in years to come. History shows that the balance of power is no
panacea for peace. In the early twentieth century we had a very
similar situation as we have now. Two rival alliance systems had
emerged as a result of defence pacts. Each suspicious about the
other, they increased their military power to maintain the
balance. But ultimately the balancing powers collided and the
world was plunged into a world war. In the present situation we
cannot afford to rely on the doctrine of balance of power. What
if the present balance of power system also collapses?
"History is also full of examples of nations acting irrationally.
I think under tension man's ability to make rational decisions is
reduced. There are people who advocate what they call a pre-
emptive nuclear strike. All countries however, do not have a
political system in which majority rule is practised. Furthermore
even in a democratic set up there can arise a situation where a
person belonging to this minority might be placed in a position
where he can unleash nuclear weapons and a nuclear war can be
started.
"The fact of the matter is that the world has reached a stage
where one accident, one irrational decision, or one wrong move
might very well spell an end for everything living. I see no
alternative for this world other than disarmament. The moral and
ethical approaches demand this. But practical common sense points
this way even more. Mr John F Kennedy has said we must abolish
them before they abolish us and Mr Khuruschev has also said
something like this although I do not recall his exact words".
Explaining India's policy on arms control, Nehru further said:
"There has been a general agreement for some time that it is
relatively more easy to agree on measures geared to stop or slow
the arms race than on arms reduction measures. The risk involved
in achieving such arms control agreements are small and,
therefore, without much mutual trust such agreements can be
concluded. This is not to say it is easy to conclude them but
relatively less difficult than achieving agreement on disarmament
measures. Implementation of arms control measures either by
agreement or by unilateral decisions also have the effect of
increasing mutual confidence and improving the international
climate. Thus we gradually move towards disarmament and we shall
support any step that will facilitate disarmament.
Nuclear Disarmament
"However, I would like to stress that the objective of India is
disarmament and we regard arms control as a means to achieve it.
It is a step in that direction. It is important to seek agreement
on arms control measures, especially when we have a situation in
which disarmament has become a complex problem. But arms control
is not disarmament and to make it an objective is to abandon the
hope for disarmament. We cannot accept that. We have always
stated we will support any arms control measures provided they
create conditions for achieving disarmament."
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's proposal of "No First Use"
of nuclear weapons should be on the agenda of the coming UN
General Assembly session. India should also revive its 1948
proposal to utlaw nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that
these are arms control measures. But, in that, they are steps
towards nuclear disarmament, which has been India's objective
since Independence, we ought to pursue them without, however,
losing sight of our ultimate goal.
(The author is member, Law Commission)
Back
Top
|
