National

A Deterred Defence

An unprepared BJP come under Opposition attack on the N-tests, but is bailed out by the PM

Advertisement

A Deterred Defence
info_icon

FACING a Parliament session days after exploding a nuclear device, in the best of times, is an exercise no prime minister would like to undertake. Add to it the BJP's lack of numbers in the Lok Sabha and a belligerent Opposition questioning the motives behind the tests, the session is bound to be explosive. If amidst all this, Pakistan also carries out its own nuclear test as "retaliation", the heat generated can overshadow the sweltering summer and rattle the most hard-boiled of politicians.

Last week, it took all that Atal Behari Vajpayee had to barely pull the BJP's chestnuts out of fire in the face of a virulent Opposition offensive on the timing of the Pokhran tests. In the process, India's 50-year-old consensus on security issues came under attack as never before, perhaps suggesting the pattern of things to come.

Advertisement

BJP leaders were expecting fireworks but its intensity took them by surprise, and on the wrong foot. Opposition leaders of all hues had the same cant: while the work done by Abdul Kalam, Chidambaram and Co was commendable, the same couldn't be said about the BJP's intentions. Also, they chorused, the dogs of war have to be leashed and peace has to again top the agenda.

Former prime ministers Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral attacked the government for its motives. Gujral, for instance, said the subcontinent had been pushed into a nuclear arms race "purely for political reasons". "There was no security threat when I laid down office," he claimed. Gowda attacked the "partisan and political" nature of the tests, saying previous governments had the wherewithal to turn the screwdriver, but had not done so because the threat to security was not as sharp as the BJP perceived it to be.

Advertisement

In a welter of charges, rarely well met by the BJP with the exception of Vajpayee's reply, home minister L.K. Advani's interjection at about the same time that Pakistan was detonating at Chagai Hills and defence minister George Fernandes' defence. Indeed, there was no real respite for the BJP, which came under severe attack from the Congress, the main Opposition party. While Natwar Singh, who led the charge, scoffed at Advani and his policy of hot pursuit, saying it contravened laws of international relations, the others were critical of the way the BJP had handled the aftermath of the bomb.

Points out Madhavrao Scindia: "The way in which the whole post-explosion scene has been handled makes a mockery of the situation. If this is the way nuclear states behave, heaven help all of us." Dittoes party spokesperson Salman Khurshid: "We are trying to help the BJP combine, as this matter relates to national security and there can be no disagreement there. But we are seeking a few answers and apparently there is no one in the government who can give us an answer. My fear is that the government is badly divided."

In a no-holds barred match, the Opposition gave it all it had. Apart from Natwar Singh, former Union minister P. Chidambaram presented a coherent case: the arms race, mounting of missile heads, more nuclear warheads in the region and, then again, the real motives for the blasts. Chidambaram in fact recreated a mini-Star Wars situation for the subcontinent—only to be denied hotly by Fernandes who urged Chidambaram to "look at the annual reports of the Ministry of Defence for the last few years" before raising ridiculous queries. And he pointed out later, a nuclear weapon had been used just once by a country that was the sole possessor of an atomic device. Since then, as more nations acquired the technology, it has not been used and has only been used as a deterrent. Not to be outdone, the CPI's Indrajit Gupta talked of the water and power crisis in the capital "while this government is busy making bombs". Fernandes' retort: "Water and power have been a problem for the last 50 years. Could all of it be linked to the nuclear explosions?"

Advertisement

While the tenor of the Opposition's objections remained the same, some in the Congress like P.A. Sangma raised different points. He demanded that the government publish a detailed report, a white paper of sorts, on the socio-economic ramifications and cost of the bomb. "This is the least that the government can do," Sangma said, pointing to the rising problems faced by the general population.

But the two-day attack on the BJP clearly had two phases. On day one, that is May 27, Pakistan had not yet detonated and the Opposition seemed to have its act together. The attack on the government was better orchestrated and the Congress and the Left parties coordinated so well that it was difficult to believe that the former had pulled down an United Front (UF) government barely a few months ago on the flimsiest of grounds.

Advertisement

Then came the announcement that Pakistan too had entered the hallowed nuclear club. In the middle of CPI(M) leader Somnath Chatterjee's speech, Natwar Singh interjected, asking the government to confirm what he had seen on the wires. All hell broke loose after that, with the entire Opposition on its feet, with no Vajpayee or Advani in sight and only Madan Lal Khurana to con-firm. Luckily for the BJP, the prime minister walked in, as if on cue.

The BJP's response was rather subdued. Former Jammu and Kashmir governor Jagmohan made a lacklustre speech which instead of countering the Opposition charges, emphasised on disarmament and the ills of nuclear bombs—prompting Subramanian Swamy to suggest that Jagmohan had perhaps got the wrong brief. Whatever little opposition came from the younger lot of BJP MPs like Vijay Goel, who asked Sangma why he did not mention the Pakistan blasts with the same elan as he presented the case against India. Says Goel: "The tenor of speeches being made here are blatantly political. Some speakers are presenting Pakistan's case, all in the name of attacking the BJP's decision to carry out explosions." Questioning the wisdom of quibbling over the timing of the blasts, former Himachal chief minister Shanta Kumar said no country in the world "could afford to disclose its closely guarded security plans publicly"; hence, it was the Opposition's line which was motivated.

Advertisement

In his reply, Vajpayee reflected similar sentiments. Pained at the charge that his party had started the nuclear arms race, Vajpayee asked whether it was possible to organise nuclear tests in a mere fortnight—a reference to Pakistan's tests just 17 days after India's. As for bickering over issues of national security, he said: "I had supported Pokhran I in 1974 when Indira Gandhi had done what was long needed. My party had asked no questions on the motives of the Congress government. I had personally hailed it. But now I find everyone attacking us on untenable grounds."

But the most significant statement came from Advani during his interjection. This is likely to alter the scenario in the days to come. He emphasised that Kashmir affairs vis-a-vis Pakistan ceased to be purely an external affairs matter, so he as home minister was entitled to intervene. Said he: "Instead of reacting to killings by foreign inspired mercenaries in J&K, as has been happening for so many years now, I want the government to take pre-emptive action." According to well-placed sources, the Kashmir policy is likely to change in the days to come. "There has been a lot of surveillance, but chances are that it is going to be made stricter. This is also what Farooq Abdullah wants. Now with the home minister himself making the scenario clear, the signal will go down the line," says a source.

Clearly, the speeches last week in the Parliament broke fresh ground. The House has never debated national security matters in such great detail and so publicly. Many politicians hope that in the eventuality of elections, the proceedings may well turn out to be crucial.

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement