Connect with us

South Asia

Indian Budget 2016: Focus on state elections

Published

on

For India, wasting huge resources on joint cricket exercises, cricket matches are more important than the government budgets that are approached with usual ease.

Even while a budget is being presented in the parliament, in fact, the ministers and MPs are worried more about India’s chances for more cricket matches to “improve ranking” and bogus records by mutual consents. This explains how much the cricket mafia controls Indian government and mindset.

Even as Indian and Pakistani cricket teams were seemingly making joint efforts in Bangladesh to reach the final to let India shine eventually in T20 as part of so-called Asia cup, played in the night (5 teams are allowed to play: 4 South Asian teams India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and hopeless UAE), Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley presented the BJP government’s Union Budget 2016 on February 29 morning, making it appear to be pro-poor.

For India cricket match is as good as budget making and the Indian finance minister Jaitley was earlier an important BCC boss. Indian FM Jaitley, pitching now for economic growth, hailed the Indian economy’s big strides.

The Modi government unveiled a fire-fighting budget that seeks to win back support among rural voters for Modi’s government and sustain growth against a grim global backdrop – all without borrowing more. Jaitley claims India’s growth has accelerated to 7.6% in 2015-16 notwithstanding contraction of global exports. He said India’s growth is extraordinarily high. “Our external situation is robust, CAD has declined to $14.4 billion this year, will be 1.4% of GDP at the end of fiscal. CPI inflation has also come down to 5.5% from 9.4% in the last three years”.

Jaitley described his three priorities as: strengthening India’s firewalls by ensuring macroeconomic stability and prudent fiscal management; driving growth through domestic demand; and reforms to boost economic opportunity. Key areas of policy focus would be farming, social reforms, infrastructure and recapitalizing India’s banking system

With state elections coming on their way this year, the Modi government feels the state governments take all credits for schemes and mega projects launched by central government and it is eager to pitch for full credit for its programs and the budget would stress that all major projects in states are in fact BJP government’s.

Arun Jaitley’s third budget marked a strategic shift by addressing rural distress in a country of 1.3 billion, where two-fifths of families rely on farming and are reeling from two years of drought. Jaitley reeled off a list of $16 billion in measures targeted at the countryside, including spending on a job creation scheme, farmers’ welfare and building of rural roads. He also targeted a total of $130 billion in credit to farmers.

Jaitley laid out plans to electrify all Indian villages by 1 May 2018 and allocated Rs 8,500 crore for rural electrification in fiscal 2017. As in every year, the agriculture credit target has been increased to Rs 9 lakh crore from Rs 8.5 lakh crore. It offered a fine blueprint of several small steps to lift India’s villages and encourage small entrepreneurs but failed to impress on NDA-government’s big challenge of taking ahead the reforms process and aggressive infrastructure spending needed to lift the economy to a high growth path. At the same time it hiked public investment in India’s woeful infrastructure by 22.5 percent, while taking further steps to revive corporate investment that Modi needs to create new jobs for India’s burgeoning workforce.

Jaitley called Asia’s third-largest economy a bright spot in a gloomy global landscape, and reiterated a false forecast that it would grow by 7.6 percent in the fiscal year that is drawing to a close. But, despite hefty commitments on rural welfare and health, Jaitley managed to stick to his fiscal deficit target of 3.5 percent of gross domestic product for the 2016/17 fiscal. Rural demand is weak, private investment is dead in the water and, of course, we have a banking crisis

Jaitley said the government wanted to ensure that the benefits of growth are more widely shared among India’s 1.3 billion people and he unveiled pro-poor budget to placate voters, pledges reforms Finance Minister Arun Jaitley unveiled a budget for the poor, announcing new rural aid and health programmes in a strategy shift that could boost his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in coming state elections.

Apparently, the Modi government has spared the common man, has not added more burdens on common masses in the budget. More taxes would certainly have meant popular crisis. At first glance, Budget 2016 is naturally more a Modi budget, than a statement of purpose from Jaitley. Packed with several small-steps initiatives but lacking major bold steps to undertake much needed reforms.

India holds several state elections this year, including in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, with the country’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, going to the polls in 2017. A strong showing will be vital to Modi’s chances of a second term. Despite commanding a large majority in parliament’s lower house, Modi’s government has failed to pass several key measures since sweeping to power almost two years ago, raising doubts over the impact of its reform agenda.

After BJP’s losses in Delhi and Bihar elections, govt put emphasis on social sector, farmers and rural India. The themes– poor, farmers and women–which had been gaining accent in Modi’s speeches in recent months, resounded in the budget, blunting the blitzkrieg of the Congress led by its vice-president Rahul Gandhi calling the NDA a “suit-boot ki sarkar”.

The Union Budget 2016 bore PM Modi’s imprint rather than that of his finance minister, Arun Jaitley. Among budget highlights, FM Jaitley announced 1% excise duty to be levied on all articles of jewellery except silver. This means silver prices are going to remain unchanged. Government will increase ATMs, micro-ATMs in post offices in next three years. Government announced deduction for rent paid to be raised to Rs 60,000 to Rs 20,000 to benefit those living in rented houses. People who don’t have any houses of their own or don’t get house compensation from employers get rebate of Rs 24,000 per annum. Ceiling of tax rebate for taxpayers with up to Rs 5 lakh annual income to be raised to Rs 5000 from Rs 2000 currently; Daily working hours and weekly hours for employees of malls and small shops will be regulated. For first time home buyers will be levied for loans up to Rs 35 lakh for property not exceeding Rs 50 lakh.

The major highlight of the budget was Jaitley’s big push on agriculture and rural India. For rural development he announced a package of Rs 87,765 crore in fiscal year 2017 as against Rs 79,526 crore. That apart, Jaitley announced a subsidy scheme for BPL families for cooking gas and said the government targets to double the income of farmers by 2020 and Rs 2,000 crore for new LPG connections. Jaitley allocated Rs 35,984 crore for the farming sector, Rs 86,500 crore on irrigation for five years, and Rs 15,000 crore interest for agricultural loans.

Jaitley promised that there “won’t be compromise” on the spending side, announcing a 11 percent increase to Rs 19.78 lakh crore in fiscal 2017 from Rs 17.77 lakh crore BE year before. Of this, plan expenditure is up by 15 percent to Rs 5.5 lakh crore and non-plan expenditure increased by 9 percent to Rs 14.28 lakh crore. But the government lowered its spending on the infrastructure segment. For fiscal year 2017, Jaitley allocated Rs 55,000 crore for roads and highways.

The Economic Survey announced on a week ago, ahead of the budget, spelled out the first priority for Jaitley to deal with in the budget — ensure that growth momentum is on. This is because the current environment is fraught with risks, which threaten all the engines of India’s growth. For fiscal year 2017, Jaitley announced a fiscal deficit target of 3.5 percent and for the fiscal year 2016, the fiscal deficit target has been met at 3.9 percent. This news could make the rating agencies, investors and the RBI happier since there was immense pressure on the government to stick to the fiscal consolidation roadmap.

The BJP government has set a disinvestment target of Rs 56,500 crore for fiscal year 2017 as against Rs 69,500 crore for fiscal year 2016. Of this Rs 56,500 crore, Rs 36,000 crore is through the sale of stake in state-run companies and the rest through strategic sales. In the last year, as against the target of Rs 69,500 core, the government managed to raise only Rs 18,421 crore (from sale of stake in six PSUs) on account of lukewarm market conditions.

For fiscal year 2017, Jaitley announced a capital infusion of Rs 25,000 for government-banks, which was part of the Rs 70,000 crore announced for five years last year

However, Finance minister Jaitley has failed so far to get hold of the root of the problems that has engulfed India’s Rs 95 trillion banking industry. Jaitley’s banking sector strategy fell short of what was needed to revive state-run banks. The bad loan crisis in the banking sector has severely constrained the ability of the banks to fund long-gestation infrastructure projects.

Modi’s change of course seeks to prevent a repeat of the fate of the Vajpayee government led by his nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose relentless optimism – summed up by its “India Shining” slogan – grated with voters who dispatched it after one term in 2004.

The spending package marks a radical shift from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s initial focus on investing in infrastructure in a bid to kick-start private-sector investment that remains weak. Making a strategic turn in its priorities from industry to the under-privileged, the political message was lucid. The BJP, which faced humiliating defeats in the Bihar and Delhi, underlined the budget’s emphasis on social sector, farmers, rural India and poor.

The Opposition rejected the budget, dubbing it as a political budget which has nothing to give impetus to three engines of growth– agriculture, private investment and exports.

The shift in the government’s economic script was forseeable. Modi has held four farmers rallies across the country over the past month even as he has been underlining the need to focus on “antyodaya”, the last man in the queue.

In his third budget, Jaitley described the country’s 120 million farmers as the “backbone of the country’s food security” and promised to double their income in five years. He also said government would increase spending on the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA), a scheme brought by the UPA regime offering 100 days of employment to villagers. He announced providing BPL families with LPG connections with subsidy, an echo of the Prime Minister’s concern about women whose eyes watered while cooking on chullahs. Announcing government’s commitment towards rural electrification, he assured 100 per cent village electrification by May, 2018.

Besides fiscal consolidation, the focus of the budget has been on infrastructure, which has even been acknowledged by the Opposition. The total outlay on the infrastructure is Rs2, 21,246 crore. For building or renting houses, there are tax benefits and for the first time home buyer the deduction for interest paid on home loan has been raised by Rs50, 000 a year.

Former finance minister P Chidambaram refuted the government’s claim that the budget was pro-farmer. “The crucial signal in agriculture sector is the price. Last year, I think the farmers were cheated.. I would have expected that the price signal is given clearly to the farmers. Immediately it is the prices signal that enthuse the farmers. One of the reasons for acute distress in rural India is that the farmers are not getting fair and remunerative prices for their produce,” he said. CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said the budget will “create greater economic inequalities, reduced purchasing power, was not growth oriented and appeased international capital more than meeting people’s requirements.”

The 2016 budget, a big test for Jaitley, was a tough balancing act between the fiscal consolidation and much-needed spending to revive growth in the economy, especially in the face of rising investor-pessimism on the rise, which has risked Modi’s task of reviving the economy. Jaitley committed to the fiscal consolidation path, but failed to impress by setting aside enough funds to push ahead the infrastructure growth and address the banking sector woes.

Observation

In the past, the delays in project implementations in India have resulted in huge cost-over runs to companies. The corporate sector will eagerly look for measures that can ease their burden, especially in the infrastructure projects.

One should note that Jaitley’s big task remains making sure the engines of economic growth aren’t failing. This year, the increase in infra spending is merely Rs 30,000 crore as against Rs 70,000 crore last year, which isn’t so encouraging at this stage of economic growth.

There are certainly ifs and buts in budgets presented by governments with a lot of predictions and lies. The parliamentarians, even while debating the budgets, are enjoying their stay in the Houses. How much of what is said in the budget would be implemented by Modi government remains to be seen.

Meanwhile one can understand why Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and even Pakistan as powers also want to serve India? How come all these big powers like UK and Australia are scared of India. Has India paid huge sums as FDI to these countries to boycott the WC t20?

At times Bangladesh plays bit seriously well, defeating both Sri Lanka and Pakistan and reaching the finals to face “mighty cricket India”. Will BD sustain the tempo against India or collapse for whatever reason?

No one knows it for sure. Big secrecy? Most cricketers today are on the payrolls of India’s some of richest IPL bosses and possibly of BCCI for their “dedicated” services in honour of India, making it shine perpetually on the field.

For India, like its neighbors Pakistan and Sri Lanka, cricket is perhaps more profitable business than foreign trade these countries conduct. Mafias make huge money both from black and white from cricket. Lankan cricketers, who cannot but play in IPL as their duty, appear to consider Indian currency too valuable.

No matter how the budget is prepared and presented in the parliament, mafias and middlemen continue to thrive.

The budget would be forgotten by the government and people sooner than later, but not the cricket matches, because budget does not enjoy the importance the cricket does. Budget or no budget, India can go on but without cricket dramas it appears India simply cannot exist. One can’t say so sure about other countries if they are also so innocently emotional….

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Into the Sea: Nepal in International Waters

Sisir Devkota

Published

on

A visit to the only dry port of Nepal will immediately captivate busy scenes with hundreds of trucks, some railway carriages and huge Maersk containers at play. Trains from the Port of Kolkata in India carry tons of Nepal’s exports every week. Every year, Nepal is fined millions of rupees for overstaying its containers at the designated dock in Haldiya Port of Kolkata. Nepal pays for spaces inside Indian ships to carry out its exports via the sea. This is the closest Nepal has come in exploiting economic opportunities through sea waters. Prime Minister KP Oli went one step further and presented an idea of steering Nepal’s own fleets in the vast international sea space. While his idea of Nepal affording its own ship was mocked; on the contrary, he was right. The idea is practical but herculean.

To start with, Nepal has a landlocked right to use international waters via a third country for economic purposes only. Law of the Sea conferences held during the 80’s, guarantees Nepal’s right to use the exclusive economic zone all around the globe. Article 69 of the Law of the Sea convention states that Nepal could both use sea as a trading route and exploit the exclusive economic zone of its sea facing neighbors. Nepal’s closest neighbor, India has a wide exclusive economic zone which consists of 7500 km long coastline. The article also allows landlocked nations to use docking facilities of the nearest coastal nation to run its fleets. An exclusive economic zone in sea waters is designated after a coastal nation’s eleven mile parallel water boundary ends; which is also a part of the coastal nations territory. Simply put, Nepali fleets can dock at India’s port, sail eleven miles further into international waters-carry out fishing and other activities, sail back to the Indian coast and transfer its catches back to Nepal.

Floating Challenges

Before ships can carry the triangular flag into sea waters, Nepal will need treaties in place to use coastal nation’s water to take off and build shipment facilities. Law of the Sea convention clearly mentions that the right to use another nation’s coast will depend solely on the will of the hosting coastal nation. Does Nepal have the political will to communicate and forge a comprehensive sea transit agreement with its coastal neighbors? Nepal’s chance of securing fleets in and around the Indian Ocean will depend on whether it can convince nations like India of mutual benefits and cancel any apprehension regarding its security that might be compromised via Nepal’s sea activity. The convention itself is one among the most controversial international agreements where deteriorating marine ecosystems, sovereignty issues and maritime crimes are at its core. Majority of global and environmental problems persist in the high seas; ranging from territorial acquisitions to resource drilling offences. Nepal is welcome into the high seas, but does it comprehend the sensitivity that clouts sea horizons? Nepal needs a diplomatic strategy, but lacking experience, Nepal will need to develop institutional capacities to materialize the oceanic dream. Secondly, the cost of operating such a national project will be dreadfully expensive. Does the Nepali treasury boast finances for a leapfrogging adventure?

How is it possible?

The good news is that many landlocked nations operate in international waters. Switzerland, as an example might not assure the Nepali case, but Ethiopia exercising its sea rights via Djibouti’s port could be inspiring. Before Nepal can start ordering its fleets, it will need to design its own political and diplomatic strategy. Nepal’s best rationale would lie in working together with its neighbors. The South Asian network of nations could finally come into use. Along with Nepal, Bhutan is another landlocked nation where possible alliances await. If India’s coasts are unapproachable, Nepal and Bhutan could vie for Bangladeshi coastlines to experience sea trading. Maldivian and Pakistani waters are geographically and economically inaccessible but Sri Lanka lies deep down the South Asian continent. If Nepal and Bhutan can satisfy Sri Lankan interests, the landlocked union could not only skim through thousands of nautical miles around the Bay of Bengal without entering Indian water space; but also neutralize the hegemonic status of India in the region. If such a multinational agreement can be sought; SAARC- the passive regional body will not only gain political prowess but other areas of regional development will also kickstart.

Most importantly, a transit route (such as the Rohanpur-Singhdabad transit route) from Bangladesh to Nepal and Bhutan will need to be constructed well before ships start running in the Indian Ocean. In doing so, Nepal will not only tranquilize Nepal-Bhutan relations but also exercise leadership role in South Asia. A regional agreement will flourish trade but will also make landlocked Nepal’s agenda of sailing through other regions of international sea strong and plausible. A landlocked union with Bhutan will trim the costs than that of which Nepal will be spending alone. Such regional compliance would also encourage international financial institutions to fund Nepal’s sea project. Apart from political leverages, Nepal’s economy would scale new heights with decreasing price of paramount goods and services. Flourishing exports and increased tourism opportunities would be Nepal’s grandiloquence. Nepal’s main challenge lies in assuring its neighbors on how its idea would be mutually beneficial. Nepal’s work starts here. Nepal needs to put together a cunning diplomatic show.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hug Diplomacy Fails

Published

on

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s enthusiasm is only to capture power; the same, however, cannot be said of foreign policy administration, especially in dealing with our immediate neighbors, and China. The best examples of his policy paralysis are the way in which demonetization and GSTs are implemented, or his sudden visit to Pakistan in December 2015. He is always in election mode. During the first two years, he was in the humor of a general election victory. Thereafter, he has spent much of his energy in establishing himself as the sole savior of the BJP in state elections, and this year he will turn his attention to the 2019 general elections.

Two years ago, without doing any homework or planning, Modi travelled to Pakistan from Afghanistan to greet his counterpart, the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, to wish him well on his birthday. He hugged Sharif and spent only two hours with him to try to sort out the 70 year outstanding divergence between India and Pakistan.

Modi strategically hugs fellow world leaders. He has no strategic perception. He believes only in the power of his personal charisma in dealing with foreign policy matters. This strategy has failed considerably with China and with our other immediate neighbors, but he neither intends to accept these mistakes, nor is he interested in learning from them. More importantly, an alternative diplomatic strategy is necessary to maintain our international position; through prudent policy articulations. Let us examine the impact of his hug diplomacy.

During the 2013/14 general elections campaign he attacked the Congress-led UPA government on multiple fronts, including towards former Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh’s policy on Pakistan. He proposed that the BJP government would have more guts to better deal with Pakistan. Under his administration, we lost numerous soldiers in fighting with Pakistan terrorists, experienced a 100-day shutdown in Kashmir, blindly allowed a Pakistan team to inspect our Pathankot Air Force Station, and generally continued down a visionless path in foreign policy. These indicate that Modi’s defensive and offensive strokes against Pakistan have failed completely, including the most politicized ‘surgical strike’ that did not contain the terrorists from Pakistan. Today, the Modi government is searching for policy directions in handling Pakistan, but sat in a corner like a lame duck.

In the beginning, when he took office, Modi perhaps believed that ‘everything is possible’ in international affairs simply by virtue of occupying the prime minister seat. Further, he thought that all his visits abroad would bring a breakthrough. His hugs with counterparts, various costume changes, and the serving of tea, indicate that our prime minister is using soft power approaches. These approaches were used by our first Prime Minister Nehru whilst India did not have a strong military or economy. However, India is not today what it was in the 1950/60s. Presently, hugging and changing costumes will not necessarily keep India influential in international relations, especially at a time when the world is undergoing multi-polar disorder. However, he is in continuous denial that his paths are wrong, especially in dealing with our neighbors.

What is the BJP led-NDA government policy on Pakistan? Does this government have any policy for Pakistan? Since 2014,Modi has not permitted the Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj, to contribute to any foreign policy articulations. As long as Sushma fulfills the duty of Ministry of Indian Overseas Affairs she will receive praise from the prime minister’s office.

During 2015 he met Sharif at his residence in Islamabad to give him a hug. This happened exactly two years ago. Further, this is a very serious question that the Media and Modi-supporting TV channels forgot to raise. Instead, without hesitation, they praised him for touching the sky, and described the moment as a diplomatic initiative for a breakthrough with our neighbor Pakistan. The Media will realize this mistake when their traditional viewers switch over to other channels to get centrist news.

What are the outcomes of Modi hugging Sharif at his residence? The results are terrible. India’s relation with Pakistan touches the lowest ever level in a history of 70 years. The Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed was released from house arrest and has started a political party to contest the general elections in Pakistan next year. This government does not have the guts to put pressure on Pakistan to provide the evidence – as requested by the Pakistan’s Court – essential to keeping the trial alive against Saeed. Modi has often preached that his government succeeded in isolating Pakistan in the international domain. The reality would be as much India diplomatically isolating Pakistan from the international community as the vacuum has been comfortably filled by China without any difficulty. These are the achievements that Modi’s hugs have brought to India.

The stability of Afghanistan is in India’s long-term strategic interest. India’s ‘aid diplomacy’ to Afghanistan in various fields has been increasing day after day, including infrastructure development and the training of Afghan security forces. Yet, India’s influence in Afghanistan is in disarray. Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said, “India should have its own policy on Afghanistan”. However, Modi’s policy makers in New Delhi are expecting the US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to maintain India’s active and significant role in Afghanistan.

India showed its displeasure during the constitutional crisis in Nepal, in halting energy supply to Kathmandu. This forced the land-locked country to obtain easy support from Beijing. Nepal was once the buffer state between India and China; it is now sitting on China’s lap and steering India. Modi’s mute approach to the Rohingya crisis speculates India’s major power ambition. This is a serious setback to India’s diplomacy: it is now pushing Myanmar to get support from China, along with our neighbor Bangladesh, in resolving the crisis with Rohingya refugees.

The first democratically elected government under Mohamed Nasheed was toppled unconstitutionally in Maldives. Since India has failed to raise any substantial voice against this atrocity, China has jumped onto the scene. New Delhi ought to have designed a policy to resolve the political crisis, but India, the world’s largest democracy, has watched this incident as a movie in the Indian Ocean Theatre. The highlight was the decision of our Prime Minister to skip a visit to the Maldives whilst on his tour of the Indian Ocean islands.

In Sri Lanka, China is designing its future battlefield against India. As the war against LTTE was over, Colombo started travelling in a two-way track, with India and China. Beijing’s love affair, apparently with Colombo, but with an eye on New Delhi, is no secret. Since Modi has allowed these developments without exercising any diplomatic resistance, he has given China a comfortable seat inside Sri Lanka. China has now realised that her weaved network against India can be strengthened easily in the Indian Ocean, because New Delhi only displays silent concern. After Modi took office, India – China relations have remained static. The border talks are on stand still. Beijing holds on to extend a technical hold on Masood Azhar, a UN designated terrorist. The dragon pulls our immediate neighbors to her side. These developments indicate that our foreign policy articulations are not supported by any clear strategic trajectory.

Modi’s diplomacy is like an air balloon which, once torn, cannot be refilled; a new balloon is needed. Hugging a leader does not lead to any commitment in foreign affairs. Personal charisma does not work as a foreign policy tool in dealing with a world power. For this reason, Modi cannot understand the setback he is facing with China, Pakistan, and our other neighbors. In comparison, Vajpayee’s or Dr. Manmohan Singh’s combined simple charisma as leaders or economists with appropriate home-work in the past; has caused tremendous results in foreign policy, including expected results in Indo-US nuclear negotiations. This is completely missing in Modi’s administration.

Hence, the newly elected Congress Party President Rahul Gandhi has said, “Modi’s hug diplomacy fails”. It was a valuable comment that the ruling elite should consider as a meaningful insight. Alternative approaches are vital to regain our neighbors’ trust, as opposed to China’s. However, Prime Minister Modi’s this year of work will be focused on the 2019 general elections, compromising the proper attention due to India’s international diplomacy.

First published in Congress Sandesh

Continue Reading

South Asia

Potential Consequences of Nuclear Politics in South Asia

Published

on

Established in 1948, Indian atomic energy commission turned towards United Kingdom for their first help in the making of Apsara. Subsequently, with a similar vision, the CIRUS reactor was supplied by Canada, where, the heavy water came from the United States.

India, over the years, has built a nuclear program that has led to the making of a number of reactors. India’s 1974 “Peaceful nuclear explosion” implies to their hegemonic ambitions as India has the capacity to produce around 300-400 nuclear weapons. The continuous upgradation of weapons by India could lead her as a hegemon nuclear power that can deeply unsettle Pakistan and China.

Calling into question India’s stated intentions, when it comes to nuclear tests, the plutonium for its 1974 and 1998 tests was diverted from its “civilian” nuclear facilities. After 1974, India continued to claim its explosion was “peaceful” and advocated global nuclear disarmament, even as it rejected proposals by Pakistan to denuclearize South Asia.

From Pokhran-I to Operation Shakti, India has traditionally relied on plutonium and thermonuclear technology. In 1992, the then Chairman of Department of Indian Atomic Energy  acknowledged that India had succeeded in the past for achieving the target of highly enriched uranium, while the centrifuge program was facing critical and technical hindrances. Also, it was admitted by the former Chairman of AEC, Raja Ramanna that India was working to produce more efficient centrifuges which were used for military purposes.  At the peak of all these developments, it is important to note that thermonuclear weapons have far more destructive power than a nuclear bomb.

India may also be considering using its civil power reactors to increase its stock of weapon-grade plutonium. Robert Einhorn, the State Department’s former top nonproliferation official told the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in March that the officials in the Bush administration had the ambition to sign a nuclear deal with India, to “work together to counter China- to be a counterweight to an emerging China.” He further expressed his views that the nuclear deal had unfortunate repercussions, because other nations concluded that Washington was playing favorites with India.

India is the only country in the region having uranium reserves that are higher than what other countries in the region hold. India has already received roughly 4,914 tons of uranium from France, Russia, and Kazakhstan, and it has agreements with Canada, Mongolia, Argentina, and Namibia for additional shipments. It also signed a uranium deal with Australia that has sparked considerable controversy at home.

This massive production of uranium annually can support its nuclear submarine program and current weapons grade plutonium production rate indirectly. These uranium reserves are enough for approx. 6-10 bombs per year.

Adding a twist to the existing fissile material build-up process, the Indo-US strategic partnership supplemented it. Under this dangerous bargain, it would continue to not only allow India to increase its fissile material but also the capacity to increase the build-up of nuclear weapon material.

Hence, the strategic stability in South Asia has been negatively impacted since the initial stages due to the hegemonic designs which India pursued with the start of CIRUS reactor. With the passage of time, the Indo-US nuclear deal and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver have already added more repercussions and now the discriminatory move to try to facilitate Indian NSG membership will further erode the strategic stability in South Asia.

Indian NSG membership and its potential exemption has adverse implications on non-proliferation regime. This has allowed India to expand its military program. As a result of 2008 exemption it has signed a number of agreement in nuclear domain with different countries. Interestingly, Mansoor Ahmed states that India has the capacity to utilize the uranium it is importing from these countries to produce more bombs.  The aforementioned reasons sum up India’s keenness to obtain NSG’s membership. This U.S.-backed move to make India a member of the NSG will be good neither for Pakistan nor for China, and it would set off nuclear instability in the region.

While looking at the dynamics of left alone Pakistan since late 1990’s, starting from Indo-US strategic partnership to now this geoploliticising of NSG. Consequently, this shall allow India to use all this a means of making the most optimum use of all its natural uranium stocks for weaponization. To offset the stakes, it might be prudent to have a close check on the international architects of India’s nuclear build-up. The alleged misuse of U.S. and Canadian controlled items by India must be enough to refrain from any cooperation if it is not abiding by group’s guidelines and commodity control list.

Furthermore, the more discriminatory the international nuclear order becomes, the less would be the effectiveness of deterrence and strategic balance in the region. The NSG will have to identify that India’s 1974 nuclear explosive test was the reason that nuclear supplier states established the NSG. It must also emphasize upon its commitment to uphold the principles of the nonproliferation.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy