It is India's stated position that any use of nukes on it's territory or it's forces will invite a disproportionate and all out nuclear response. The reason that bolded part is part of our doctrine, is precisely to show that it doesn't matter on who's territory it happens.@Rajaraja Chola @Capt.Popeye @Mav3rick @Rashid Mahmood @nair
There are some scenarios i can think of where tactical weapons can be used without Instigating A full scale countervalue Nuclear retalliation by India.
Incase it is used inside our territory and against Indian Invadeing forces only when our conventional forces cannot stop them.
It is not about India clearly stating it or not , It just doesn't make sense. It will be a very disproportionate response
It does make sense, from India's POV - because we have a no first use policy. This part of our doctrine is a deterrent to smaller forces from using the nuke on us as a way to tackle our conventional superiority. It would be senseless if we had a no first use policy, and did not lay it out plain that any use of tactical nukes would invite a strategic response. Because in such a case, it wouldn't matter how much conventional superiority we have against Pakistan - as soon as our divisions or battle groups move into Pakistan, they can simply use low yield nukes to wipe them out. In other words, we would have no abitility whatsoever to attack pakistan. But if we make it plain that the cost of using the nuke on our invading forces would be wiping out cities or MAD, then Pakistan will not be so trigger happy with its nukes. Losing 50 sq kilometers on the border to an Indian RAPID would not be worth risking losing the entire country.
In other words, this policy of ours is meant to enforce a red line.