He picks up a shirt, buttons it up silently. Then he sits down, crosses his legs, toys with a cigarette, ready to field our questions. Outlook’s photographer wonders whether he, Santhanam, wouldn’t want to be dressed a tad formally. He steps away from us, but still very much in our sight, promptly wears a pair of trousers. The interview begins, the photographer begins his work. Santhanam frowns at the successive clicks of the camera. Soon, he can take it no more; he grimaces and says, “He’s interrupting my flow of thought.”
Santhanam’s thesis is simple: the thermonuclear device tested on May 11, 1998, under-performed; it didn’t leave a crater as it should have; it didn’t provide the expected yield of 45 KT. He says a window of opportunity is still open to conduct one or two H-bomb tests to bolster India’s nuclear arsenal. Excerpts from an interview with Santhanam:
A step apart: K. Santhanam, on the left, with Kalam, Vajpayee, R. Chidambaram and others at the Pokhran site in May 1998
What was planned for the 1998 tests? What were your thoughts? Why was it planned?
The May 1998 tests occurred 24 years after the 1974 peaceful nuclear explosion (PNE). Many things affecting India’s national security had occurred. For one, Pakistan and China had begun their cooperation in the nuclear weapon area in January 1975. (Z.A.) Bhutto had said that Pakistan would eat grass rather than succumb to a nuclear India. Certainly, they had the desire to acquire nuclear weapons. What’s necessary for us to note is that we have to keep a vigil on such developments and appropriately tune our own programmes—to improve them or go on a plateau so that the country is not caught by surprise.
Certainly, India had perfected the fission bomb or the atom bomb, with the yield in the range of 20 to 30 kilotonnes (KT). But the hydrogen bomb or the thermonuclear (TN) weapon can pack a bigger punch, almost at the same weight, maybe with a little more volume, but not substantially higher. So, to pack more punch within the volume and the mass to be carried in the payload of a missile, it was necessary to complete the work. Certainly, there was some work going on, but we had not conducted thermonuclear tests.
Bombed out?: The Pokhran site
It’s important to note that no country in the world, including the big boys, has succeeded in the first atomic nuclear tests. No matter how good or smart you are in theoretical calculations or modelling and simulations, there’s no replacement for full-scale testing in order to be sure that your design works the way you meant it to work. Theory has to be validated by experiments. In May 1998, we had a TN device, its designed yield was 45 KT and that was placed in one of the shafts in Pokhran.
When was the decision taken? Who took the decision? When were you all told about the go-ahead?
We were close enough to conducting a test towards 1995 end. That was held over for various reasons. When the BJP-led NDA government came to power (in 1998), one of the first few decisions it took was to call the agency heads of DRDO and BARC and ask, how is your readiness status, how soon can you do it. It was decided to conduct the tests in May 1998.
“The DRDO’s instruments worked perfectly for the fission device, but failed when it came to the TN device! This is talking with a forked tongue.” Since no country has got the thermonuclear device right with a single test, were there apprehensions in May 1998 that one test for the H-bomb may not be sufficient?
The very purpose of testing is to validate your designs and theoretical calculations. Between 1995 and May 1998, the device for a thermonuclear test was (made) ready. It was a device for 45 KT; anything above it would have caused a venting of radiation that would have been a violation of the Partial Test Ban Treaty to which India is a party. So, in May 1998, we had designs for a fission bomb test, for a TN device and three others with sub-kilo tonnes. It was a fairly comprehensive kind of test.
What was achieved?
The intense instrumentations to measure ground acceleration, ground movement and various other sophisticated instruments to measure....
These were all prepared by the DRDO?
The instrumentation was done by the DRDO and the recording instruments were also part of the DRDO’s responsibilities. The shaft in which the fission bomb was tested had a huge crater, even larger than the 1974 one. But the shaft where the thermonuclear device was tested did not cause the kind of damage that was expected. No crater was formed, the instruments also showed that the 45 KT yield had not been achieved.
When did you realise that the test for the thermonuclear device had failed?
Almost immediately, it was almost instantaneous, because we had the recording instruments that were calibrated to accurately record the predicted yield of the various tests. And so when the instruments didn’t show the predicted yield, we knew almost instantaneously (that the thermonuclear device had under-performed.)
Secondly, after the tests, it’s a practice to take the vehicles and visit the site of the shafts. When we (the team also included Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Dr R. Chidambaram) went there, we saw the crater was very large for the fission bomb, it was even larger than the one in 1974. But for the TN shaft, the damage was very little. No crater was formed.
“The statement attributed to Kalam is because some people beseeched him, ‘Sir, you are a Bharat Ratna. Entire India adores you. Speak in our support’.” No crater?
Were there other sceptics about the performance of the thermonuclear device?
Almost immediately, the international seismological centres, including those with decades of experience of monitoring underground testing, put out their assessment that the 45 KT yield claimed for the thermonuclear device didn’t happen. It was instantaneous, it was not inspired, it was not racist. You can’t give any such labels and say that they were deliberately doing it to downplay India’s success.
What about the other team members? Were they also sceptical?
Seeing is believing. They accepted that the TN device had under-performed. The Bombay team didn’t accept that.
“International seismological centres immediately said the claimed 45 KT yield didn’t happen. It was instantaneous, you can’t call it inspired or racist.” They said it right there?
No, they went back. Then they went to some rather ridiculous extreme by saying that the DRDO’s instrumentation was faulty. This is amazing. With respect to the fission bomb, which gave more than 20 KT for sure, the DRDO’s instruments worked perfectly. But when it came to the TN device, its instruments failed! This is talking with a forked tongue.
Is there any sure sign of telling that a TN test has failed?
If you look at the seismic data recorded by the DRDO instruments, which worked beautifully, you can tell that the 45 KT yield didn’t happen.
Then, why’s there so much difference between your perception and that of others in the team?
From scientific and technological data, we’re very sure that the TN device under-performed. Now, it’s being converted into a political statement. Claims are being made which are obviously divorced from the truth. This is an assertion rather than a scientifically proven fact. I’m not a psychoanalyst to find out what goes on in the minds of those who claim it wasn’t a failure. But as a science and technology (S&T) person, I’m very sure that the TN device didn’t perform according to expectation.
“We submitted a classified report. But they were ostrich-like. They were virtually saying, ‘I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with facts.” And when did you bring it to the notice of the leadership?
By the end of May 1998, we came and spent considerable time in analysing the data from the DRDO’s instrumentation for the tests. We checked, we double-checked and triple-checked. We submitted a report to the government saying these were the expected readings based upon BARC predictions and the actual readings are lower than that. This was given in a classified report to the government. But clearly, the attitude of some people was ostrich-like. They were virtually saying, ‘I have made up my mind, don’t confuse me with facts.’
Was that the overwhelming view?
Normally, in matters of disputes, the procedure is to form a blue-ribbon panel with retired, distinguished scientists, give them the relevant data and the classified report and get their view. This hasn’t happened yet.
When did you or the DRDO submit the report to the government expressing your views on the TN test?
Loss of face: “Kalam is a missile man. H.N. Sethna’s statement was a whack in his face, he doesn’t know where to hide”
And did Dr Kalam go through the report?
He may have read it but I’m not sure if he understood it.
“Narayanan’s statement shows desperation of a sort. There is a nice phrase in football—‘attacking the player, not the ball’.” You wrote in a newspaper about the ‘voice vote’ Brajesh Mishra took as NSA among scientists to determine whether the TN test was successful....
No, I think there was some misinterpretation. I had used the voice vote within quotes. It was not as if he went around asking each individual, do you agree, do you agree, yes sir, no sir, three bags full. He took a broad view. Normally, what happens in such matters, as I said before, is that you form an expert committee to resolve differences.
Do you think there was also personal ego involved in all this among some of the team’s key members?
Everybody has an ego of his choice and size. I’m only saying that in S&T matters, there’s no ego. When a witness is administered an oath in court, he’s asked to say, ‘I will speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.’ Why doesn’t he....
In this case, you think only partial truth is being said?
In this case, they are claiming we managed a yield of 45 KT. This is a blatant lie. It’s a LIE—all capitals.
“I have a certain ‘roundedness’ with my interest in a lot of things. But I certainly don’t have political ambitions (which I am accused of having).” So, what was the yield?
About 20 to 25 KT.
National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan describes you as a maverick....
It shows desperation of a sort. There is a nice phrase in football—“attacking the player, not the ball”.
Are they trying to attack you by discrediting you?
The attempt is to give the dog a bad name. But this dog has not lost its bite.
NSA, present and past: M.K. Narayanan, Brajesh Mishra
What did you mean when you said the NSA was barking up the wrong tree?
I said this in response to the NSA saying that Santhanam does not know what he’s talking about. I am a person from a nuclear background, who spent close to 16 years in Trombay, published articles in various journals. I was doing strategic analysis long before I came to Delhi. I may not be known to Sri Narayanan but, if anything, I will add that Narayanan is a babe in the woods on nuclear matters. His career has been that of a cop and a spook. And I don’t want to elaborate any further.
“The CTBT will be pursued with much greater vigour by the new US administration. The window (of opportunity) to test is available now.” What about former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, since he was your immediate boss in the DRDO?
He was head of the DRDO. He is a missile man, he’s not familiar with nuclear issues. You must have seen the statement of Dr H.N. Sethna. I think Dr Kalam was put up to give a statement and Dr Sethna from Bombay gave such a whack after which Dr Kalam does not know where to hide his face.
But weren’t you disappointed that Kalam, who was your boss, didn’t back you?
As my boss, he certainly didn’t prevent me from doing what I was doing. Because he knew that I knew what I was talking about. The statement attributed to him now is because some people went to him and beseeched him: ‘Sir, you are a Bharat Ratna. Entire India adores you. Your statement will carry a lot of weight. Sir, please come out with a statement in our support.’
Some people say you are raising all this now because you have political ambitions. Is that correct?
I don’t have any political ambitions. My father was an MLA in 1937, he was an MLC in 1950. My mother is a distinguished writer in Tamil who has received a number of awards. I was a debater, a quiz master and also a cricketer in college. And I have a certain ‘roundedness’, with my interest in a lot of things. But I certainly don’t have any political ambitions. This is another brush with which they want to tar me. Since I don’t have any such political ambition, this brush need not have been used. It may become counter-productive for them. It’s also one more index of their frustration and desperation.
Where do you want to take it from here?
I don’t want to take it any further. I want a closure of the discussion so that the dust settles down and the concerned agencies and people in government pull up their socks and try to understand the lessons from my remarks.
But the failure of the TN device bothers you?
It bothered me then, it bothers me now. But it does not bother me to the extent that I spend sleepless nights, because in some sense the deterrence with the fission bomb is available. But obviously, India’s nuclear arsenal is incomplete without a TN weapon. India’s minimum credible deterrent remains untouched because the fission bomb certainly worked like a song and, therefore, the minimum part of our deterrent is fully addressed. (But) certainly, we need a thermonuclear bomb, especially for the Agni class of missiles which have a range of 3,000 to 4,000 km. It really doesn’t make sense that you fly the Agni missile 4,000 km and deliver a 20 KT bomb. This will certainly not be in the category of what we call inflicting unacceptable damage on the adversary who attacks us. For sure, we need to carry out a proper thermonuclear test.
I’ve said that if the opportunity arises we should consider resuming the tests. Ultimately, it’s a political decision and I fully respect that. But if you ask me, I think the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be pursued with much vigour by the new US administration. The window of opportunity is available now.
We can still go ahead and test.
Yes, I think it’s in the national interest because the CTBT is around the corner and the new US administration will be very different in its nuclear policy than the George Bush Jr one. So, we’ll have to study all these things, understand the ramifications and take a decision based on our national interest.
But won’t such tests have severe implications for India? For instance, on the Indo-US nuclear deal?
If you look at the Bush-Manmohan Singh agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation carefully, there’s only a reference, half an article, which says that if the security environment around India changes and is of adverse nature, then the two countries will enter into consultations. This is a procedure by which the US is not taken by surprise about the developments. So, this is part of diplomacy between India and the US.
First of all, I was surprised that the statutory warning—‘Smoking is injurious to health’—did not appear alongside Outlook’s cover photo. Outlook can book the space for the next one year by interviewing retired admirals about the rat menace in the navy submarines, retired police commissioners on how the Indian police has a low libido due to the knickerbockers they wear and the ever so many retired bureaucrats floating in the Indian galaxy about the toilet conditions in the Shastri Bhavans across the country. No Indian government, howsoever foolish, will proclaim a dud test a success as the aam aadmi is not concerned about some test results in some desert when thousands of crores of rupees are being lost every year in the name of research in our teeming csir laboratories across the country. G. Natesh, Chennai
To me it seems like a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Unlike Pokhran-I in 1974, too many groups of drdo scientists were involved in the second edition. Santhanam was an ex-barc scientist and was responsible only for instrumentation. The dispute now is more a clash of egos. The Foster’s law—the only people who find what they are looking for in life are the fault-finders—applies as much to Santhanam as it does to the institutions he is vehemently accusing. A.S. Raj, on e-mail
Can Santhanam explain how no crater was formed by a 20-25 KT TN device, but a 20 KT fission device left a huge crater? Was there no TN device in the May 11, 1998, tests? Ravi Prakash, Bangalore
Santhanam could give Kumbhakarna competition when it comes to sleeping over issues. Even if one assumes that he could not say anything while the NDA was in power, what stopped him from doing so when the UPA took over in 2004? There is certainly more to Santhanam’s exposure than just the mad outburst of a disgruntled scientist. R.K. Chaturvedi, Lucknow
What took Santhanam 11 years to wise the nation up to India’s nuclear achievement that according to him wasn’t? Obviously, he was busy building and protecting his own career meanwhile. Having almost retired and collected all retirement benefits, he now has no compunctions belittling his country and colleagues by sowing doubts all around. His putting the country into this avoidable peril is reason enough for him to be tried for treason. Parmodh Sarin, on e-mail
What is the purpose of Santhanam’s diatribe? Is it just an urge to speak the truth? Is it to urge India to have another thermonuclear test before the window of opportunity closes with the imposition of the ctbt? Or is it the compulsion for a scientist who thinks he has been denied his due and wants one last righteous hurrah? Politicians and defence analysts the world over have come to realise that having a huge nuclear arsenal, including a TN device, is no guarantee for peace in one’s own backyard! With so many economic issues facing the nation and India’s nuclear isolation finally having ended, let’s not waste more time in nuclear testing but forge ahead with setting up more nuclear plants to generate cheap and green power. R.C. Acharya, on e-mail
Santhanam’s revelations expose nothing more than personal rivalries within the scientific community. P. Arihanth, Hyderabad
How has a person who was a salaried scientist of the government of India been able to afford a house in the posh area of Greater Kailash Part II in New Delhi? Aseem Swarup Johri, Toronto
Instead of simply dismissing Santhanam’s statement, why can’t the Indian scientific community tackle the issue head on and tell the nation the truth? How much worse can it get? Jayadevan T.J., Kumbanadu
Santhanam’s piece looks too choreographed. Could there be more to this than just an angry maverick scientist seemingly craving for attention? Ninad Huilgol, Sunnyvale, US
Your cover story achieved what it set out to do: create shock value. But the public is least interested in blame games. They want results, not rhetoric. That no country has succeeded in its first atomic nuclear test is another matter; two wrongs can’t make a right. The authorities should act against the dishonest scientists on the basis of the evidence Santhanam can provide. They owe it to the nation. K.S. Thampi, Chennai
Santhanam was the operative head of the group of scientists who conducted Pokhran-II. If he was dissatisfied with the results, he should have spoken then. He is guilty of misleading the nation for 11 years. A.K. Ghai, Mumbai
Santhanam still hasn’t answered one question that is on the nation’s mind: why did he wait 11 years to tell the truth? V.R. Ganesan, New Jersey
Dr Santhanam is a distinguished scientist who retired from the drdo and who was involved in the second Pokhran tests. As such, his remarks should be taken seriously. The government should appoint an independent team of distinguished scientists and find the truth for the benefit of its citizens. Dr C.V. Subramaniam, Bangalore
The Outlook cover story shows what we have known all along: that our scientific establishment is mired in politics and is in an utter mess. No one can make a career in science unless they are sycophants. Now they are crowing about finding water on the moon. Watch this space...after a few years, we’ll find out even this is eyewash. Dinesh Kumar, Chandigarh
Ask an Indian scientist a subject-related question and he will, if he knows the answer, behave as if we discovered the field before the West, and if he does not, will say that all those who claim they know the answer are nothing but cheats and sycophants. Santhanam belongs to the old breed of Indian scientists: brilliant but who could not do much either because of insufficient facilities or due to an outdated scientific culture and who consequently have lived with the feeling of sour grapes. If he does have the data to prove that the experiment failed, Santhanam should, instead of going to the press, submit it to a scientific peer-reviewed international journal. He should also keep his ego under check and realise that the issue is not about him but the country. By keeping silent for 11 years, he himself is guilty of the dishonesty he is accusing others of. Narayana Sthanam, Birmingham, US
Why doesn’t Outlook hire some MPs to rake up the issue in Parliament? This expose will serve no purpose unless investigated for truth. Navien K. Batta, Muscat
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT