The nuclear non-proliferation paradigm 1 has rarely remained static. Its logic or the underlying principle has however been singular – non-proliferation should lead to nuclear disarmament, and eventually total elimination. It is the approach to the paradigm that has evolved over the years, often accentuated by, and many a time succumbing to, the transformations in the global security environment. Milestones in this evolution have often been construed as shifts in the paradigm, as newer security imperatives necessitated augmentations in existing approaches to proliferation challenges.
The former defence minister Shri Yeshwantrao Chavan led a delegation to the United States in May 1964 to discuss American support for the Indian Defence Five-Year Plan. The delegation included among others, the then defence secretary Shri P.V.R. Rao. Both Shri Chavan and Shri Rao were very impressed by the quantitative and analytical approach adopted by the US Defense Department and on their return, initiated discussions in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to explore the possibility of setting up a ‘think tank’ on the lines of the RAND Corporation.
Non-proliferation is now an accepted norm in international security and international relations. Most countries perceive global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation as being inseparable in principle, although there is disagreement among countries on the ultimate objective of non-proliferation. Most countries generally want non-proliferation to be a transitional arrangement before total nuclear disarmament, which at present is a desirable though distant goal. The classical bargain for balancing the two has tilted in favour of non-proliferation.
K. Subrahmanyam, who passed away on 2 February 2011, has been hailed as one of India's leading strategic thinkers. Having joined the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in 1950, his career graph turned out to be unique. He was one of those rare bureaucrats who came to be recognised more as a strategist than as a typical government official.
The historical baggage weighing on the Russo-Afghan relationship is apparently in the process of being jettisoned. The two countries have been cautiously reaching out and engaging each other for quite some time now. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's state visit to Moscow on 20–21 January 2011 – the first by an Afghan head of state in more than two decades – could be perceived as a major step forward.
I vividly remember my first encounter with K. Subrahmanyam in 1974 in Washington shortly after India had exploded its underground nuclear device. I was then country director for India in the state department and we had a lively and at times contentious debate over the wisdom of the test. As you would expect, Subbu stoutly defended India's action while scathingly criticising US policy. ‘Who do you Americans think you are, telling us what to do and trying to make us second class nuclear citizens’, I recall him saying.
The pro-democracy uprisings in West Asia began with Tunisia, where the dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled the country in a dramatic fashion and found refuge in Jeddah, his new home in exile in Saudi Arabia. The Tunisian revolt had a dramatic impact on Egypt, where a non-violent uprising, brewing for some years, sought the removal of the regime of Hosni Mubarak, president for 28 years. While the movement for change in Egypt was still underway, a pro-democracy revolt erupted in Bahrain, which became the first country in the Gulf whose people sought a fundamental political transformation.
