The Thumb of Ekalavya - India's Security Interests and the U.S.

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

The multitudes who watched the teleserial, Mahabharuta and the

somewhat smaller number who would actually have read the

epic would be familiar with the fate of Ekalavya. Born of—in

today's jargon—'socially disadvantaged' parents, the boy was

barred from learning the skills reserved for the martial castes.

This did not prevent him from picking up these skills on his own,

all the while imagining to himself that the great teacher,

Dronacharya, was guiding him.

When the five Pandava brothers found out that the low-born

Ekalavya was not just their equal but in some respects their

superior in the crucial art of archery, they complained to

Dronacharya, who made Ekalavya cut off his thumb, thus

ending his career in archery.

If Ekalavya’s fate comes to mind during the month in which

India joined the nuclear club 20 years ago, it is because the

modern-day Pandavas—the five accepted nuclear powers—are,

through the United States, seeking to cut off lowly India’s

nuclear thumb through a voluntary capping of its activities and

capabilities in the nuclear and missile fields. Should the

Narasimha Rao government eventually agree to this strategic

mutilation, it would be as significant an act of self-abnegation as

Ekalavya’s.

Restrictive View

The mandarins of North Block, which houses the Union finance

ministry, are focusing on finance capital as the engine of economic

progress, especially the capital flowing in from abroad, This is a

rather restrictive view of development, and not just because such

financial inflows are ordinarily prone to sudden reversals in

direction. It is also restrictive because it ignores the fact that the

locomotive behind economic change has always been science 

and technology based on a durable foundation of educational with

excellence.

Had the finance ministry shown the same eagerness to

buttress indigenous research and development that it is showing interest

to attract finance capital into this country, India's long-term 

interests may have been better served. One is reminded of the 

consistent western criticism of Pandit Nehru's drive to improve 

the level of scientific research in India, and to create the social 

and institutional infrastructure needed for growth. Today, this 

far-sightedness has resulted in a science and technology 

establishment that is the equal of any other power. Had Pandit 

Nehru - or his successors - accepted the western viewpoint and

choked off funds to high-technology areas (as is being done by 

today's mandarins) India would today be at the mercy of outside

powers in the sphere of defence. 

The argument used by the small but dominant body of

officials seeking to cap India's technology in the nuclear and

missile field is that the U.S. would 'guarantee India's security in

the same way as it does that of Japan and Western Europe'. Such

a formulation ignores the very real difference between India on

the one hand and Western Europe and Japan on the other. In the

case of India, U.S. policy has often been ambiguous—and at

times hostile—on basic security concerns. One example is the

recent statement implicitly accepting the Pakistani demand for

a change in the present status of Kashmir. Another is the close

American attention to 'human rights issues' in sensitive Indian

states.

Should the finance ministry prescription be accepted, India

would be at the mercy of the U.S. on all issues affecting its

strategic interests. Should the U.S. perceive India as being 

insufficiently ready to open up its markets to American l

companies, it could up the ante on Kashmir and other sensitive 

indian states, and use the ensuing turmoil as a lever to press for 

further concessions. It is, for example, clear that Pakistan—which I

has been a client state of the U.S.—could have been compelled

by that country to desist from supporting terrorists in India. The

fact that Pakistan does not feel inhibited in carrying on such

activity and that other U.S.-friendly nations such as Saudi

Arabia also give financial help to fundamentalist organisations

within India, can be logically taken as indicative of a strategy to

keep tensions within this country on the boil.

Washington constantly speaks of its support for the territorial

integrity of India, while in the same breath derecognising

Kashmir's accession to this country. It speaks of its commitment

to regional peace, while simultaneously retaining its military

base in the Indian ocean. This brings us to one expressed

(through Paul Kreisberg, a senior American diplomat) U.S.

reason for stopping the development of Agni. According to

Kreisberg, this is essential ’in order to forestall any threat to U.S.

naval vessels in the Indian Ocean'.

War Games

The Pentagon is prone to playing war games, and not always on

computer screens, and one such 'game' could involve the despatch

of an American naval task force to the Indian waters in pursuit

of a strategic or tactical aim. Should Agni, Prithvi and such other

systems be done away with, the country would be defenceless

against such a move, one that was actually put into operation by

the U.S. navy during the 1971 Bangladesh war. To entrust the

defence of 880 million people to the goodwill of a power located

thousands of miles away, and which has had a history of putting

pressure on India to compromise its security concerns to

accommodate a hostile Pakistan, would be an act of

irresponsibility.

If the industrial revolution generated the momentum for the

development of European economies two centuries ago, the

chemical revolution during the turn of the century and the

computer revolution in the post-World War II period were

responsible for fuelling a substantial share of the progress made

in the 1900s. Today, the atomic revolution may well be the new

frontier. This is the reason why such immense effort is being

made in countries such as the US or Japan to harness fusion

energy. India lost out on the industrial revolution and forfeited

her freedom. India lagged behind on the chemical and computer

fronts this century, and missed out on prosperity. Today the

Clinton administration is asking this country to step aside once

more as a helpless bystander while others develop—and reap the

benefits of—frontline technologies.

US Intervention

Afghanistan is a nearby case that illustrates the consequences of

American intervention, an intervention not the less detestable

because it followed the equally repugnant Soviet one. Today that

country has been effectively partitioned into three states, each

controlled by a warlord who has thrived on U.S. resources and

weaponry. Cambodia is another example, a country where the

U.S. worked behind the scenes to oust the 'neutralist' Prince

Norodom Sihanouk only to welcome him back after many

millions of lives had been lost. Should the Dan Burtons and the

Robin Raphels have their way, Kashmir, Punjab—and indeed the

whole of India—may go the way of Afghanistan or Cambodia.

Only an independent strategic deterrent will curb this U.S.

propensity to intervene and experiment in third countries.

The U.S. needs to treat India not as so much avoirdupois in

the 'white man’s burden', but as an independent major power

with its own perceptions and strategic deterrents. This America

will do once India sheds the belief that only genuflection and

surrender will propitiate the gods in 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.

One hopes that the Narasimha Rao government will not go the

way of Ekalavya—or Gorbachev or Alia Izbetgovich, for that

matter—but follow the way mapped out not just by China but

also by Malaysia and even tiny Singapore. India’s strategic

independence and scientific prowess are too valuable to mortgage 

and destroy.