Not on, Natwar

The scene is, in diplomatic terms, too comic to imagine. An Indian prime minister is valiantly trying to defend India’s nuclear policy ...

int(1)

The scene is, in diplomatic terms, too comic to imagine. An Indian prime minister is valiantly trying to defend India’s nuclear policy before the US government. An US secretary of state then intervenes: “But Mr Prime Minister, your own foreign minister seems to think that India’s exercise of its nuclear options was a mistake.” Unfortunately, Natwar Singh’s remarks in Seoul have brought such a scenario out of the realm of fantasy into the realm of diplomatic possibility. His suggestion that India’s nuclear programme might be the occasion for some regret is an indiscretion of the highest order. It would have been one thing to caution the two Koreas about the pitfalls of pursuing their nuclear programme; it is quite another to contravene consistent Indian policy on the matter.

On the surface, Singh’s remarks display an astonishing historical amnesia. They belie the fact that all prime ministers, from Jawaharlal Nehru to Manmohan Singh, have sought to keep India’s nuclear options open. This is one issue on which attempting a partisan interpretation just does not wash. But, more seriously, Singh is acting in an official capacity and the tenor of his remarks is not stated government policy. If he feels passionately that India’s nuclear programme should be the cause of some regret, he has two options. Either he can persuade the government to adopt that line or, failing that, he can resign. What he cannot do is unilaterally make policy on such a sensitive matter. Such statements also give the impression that there’s confusion about who is in charge of foreign policy. The prime minister ought to act quickly to make this clear.

Singh does not seem to understand the basic tenets of international bargaining. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that India’s position on its nuclear doctrine is about to undergo rethinking. Even in such circumstances, India would have used its flexibility to bargain with the international community for some concessions in return. But a public display of rethinking simply weakens its bargaining position. So even if Singh’s thinking is indicative of a trend in government strategy on the matter — which is extremely unlikely — it is simply too premature to let the cat out of the bag in quite this way. Simply put, if Singh’s regrets are not government policy, he is out of line; if they are, he is being extremely naive by revealing it in the manner he did.