What's new

Could India have been an NSG member already? Nehru rejected US offer of help, says new book

INDIAPOSITIVE

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
9,318
Reaction score
-28
Country
India
Location
India
Could India have been an NSG member already? Nehru rejected US offer of help, says new book
Prime Minister Nehru (1869 - 1964) speaking at the White House, watched by President John F Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson.(Getty Images)
IFTIKHAR GILANI|Mon, 13 Jun 2016-07:00pm , New Delhi , dna
Nehru's rejection delayed India in nuclear race, says book by former Foreign Secretary Maharajakrishna Rasgotra.

Due to first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s rejection of a US offer, India lost in the nuclear race. US President John F Kennedy had offered India the chance to develop and detonate a nuclear device much before China’s test in 1964. According to former Foreign Secretary Maharajakrishna Rasgotra, if Nehru had accepted the offer, fifty years later India would not have to make desperate attempts and struggle to seek an entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

“Not only would we have tested the nuclear device first in Asia, before China, but it would have deterred China from launching its war of 1962 and even imparted a note of caution to Pakistan’s plans for war in 1965,” said Rasgotra, while speaking at the release of his new bookA Life in Diplomacyat the Observer Research Foundation (ORF). The book was formally released by former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha.

In the book, Rasgotra revealed that Kennedy had made the extraordinary gesture towards India after learning through American intelligence in the late 1950s that China’s nuclear programme was progressing towards a weapons’ detonation in 1964. The former Foreign Secretary said, “Kennedy, who was an admirer of India’s democracy and held its leader Jawaharlal Nehru in very high esteem, felt that democratic India, not Communist China, should be the first Asian country to conduct a nuclear test”.

Kennedy’s handwritten letter was accompanied by a technical note from the chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, setting out the assistance his organisation would provide to Indian atomic scientists to detonate an American device from atop a tower in Rajasthan desert.

In the letter, Kennedy had said that he and the American establishment were aware of Nehru’s strong views against nuclear tests and nuclear weapons, but emphasised the political and security threat China’s test would spell for Nehru’s government and India’s security. “Nothing is more important than national security”, Kennedy’s letter had emphasized.

However, after discussions with Dr Homi Bhabha and GP Parthasarathy, Nehru finally turned down the offer, though he was not disinclined to the offer initially and had instructed Dr Bhabha to “work out a plan of action on most urgent basis, should we finally accept Kennedy’s offer”.

The book tells the story of India’s foreign policy formulation from the initial years till towards almost the end of the 20th century. After being one of the country’s top foreign secretaries, Rasgotra retired in 1990. He was the foreign secretary under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.

Describing the book as a “great work with lots of wisdom”, Yashwant Sinha said he wished the book also provided a picture of the global economy then and the economic relationships. He also impressed on the need for Indian leadership to focus more on Africa and Latin America to further the country’s interests.

Comparing diplomacy to geology, Sinha said that the surface may be soft but even as one keeps digging, the soil gets harder and harder and finally hits hard rock. The diplomats should find out where the hard rocks lie and guide the leadership in drilling through them.


http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...jected-us-offer-of-help-says-new-book-2223270
 
Was indeed a good decision of Nehru .
2016 India is way different than 1950s India ,in almost all fields .
Our comprehensive national power enabled us to take initiatives in such deal.
 
Yes factually incorrect of Nehru having anything to do with NSG, but one fact remains, US was never comfortable with Indian N program.
Bechtel provided us with Tarapur 1&2 reactors but in turn wanted us to abandon any military N program. As things stood, our own domestic R&D program was progressing well and even when entire west turned against us after Pokhran1, we still had enough skills and energy to move alone even though slowly.
I recall when US congress debated 123 agreement, top US experts commented, that isolation has actually made India stronger and in certain areas (fast breeder reactors), even leaders. Sanctions were counter productive.
These statements coupled with our spotless Non proliferation record tilted the scales in our favor and today we are only country that enjoy all benefits of NSG members without being signatory of NPT.
However had we signed NPT and were members of NSG, i believe we wouldn't have been self sufficient as we are now.
So retrospective review will tell, that probably what happened was best.
 
The NSG was formed in 1975 as a result of our first atomic test. Nehru died some 11 years before that ....

The point is if Nehru would have accepted the help at that time we would not have need to struggled to join NSG, MTCR, UNSC etc etc.

China was given similar options it gracefully accepted it.

The same Nehru introduced License raj which destroyed our economy.
 
Yes factually incorrect of Nehru having anything to do with NSG, but one fact remains, US was never comfortable with Indian N program.
Bechtel provided us with Tarapur 1&2 reactors but in turn wanted us to abandon any military N program. As things stood, our own domestic R&D program was progressing well and even when entire west turned against us after Pokhran1, we still had enough skills and energy to move alone even though slowly.
I recall when US congress debated 123 agreement, top US experts commented, that isolation has actually made India stronger and in certain areas (fast breeder reactors), even leaders. Sanctions were counter productive.
These statements coupled with our spotless Non proliferation record tilted the scales in our favor and today we are only country that enjoy all benefits of NSG members without being signatory of NPT.
However had we signed NPT and were members of NSG, i believe we wouldn't have been self sufficient as we are now.
So retrospective review will tell, that probably what happened was best.

I agree...but it does not excuse Nehru for being a complete idealogue of strictly peaceful nuclear research...and only a cursory attention to weapons. A whole decade was wasted in the 50s and large part of 60s too when the aim should have been to get a nuke ready by any means for when anyone in the neighbourhood tests and test immediately after. We had great scientists under Homi Bhabha, just needed a leader to give the direction there.

We would have been in the NPT and probably permanent UNSC by now....and been both independent in foreign policy along with membership in all the technology related organisations like NSG.

This whole world will be peaceful and everyone will be a friend of India was a terrible philosophy....along with his leftist socialist utopia crap.
 
License raj which destroyed our economy.
:tup:
He was actually living in a past and unfortunately the restrictive kind of governance he and subsequent Congress led governments had meant we were forced to live in a very constrained manner. India had the good fortune of having a sound education system in place and for people who came into mainstream economy equipped with good quality education, the above environment meant, there were little opportunities. Had we been a freer economy, private entrepreneurship, would have meant our economy moving on a different trajectory at a much different speed, rather than following Hindu Growth rate.
800px-India_GDP_without_labels.PNG
GDP_per_capita_of_India_(1820_to_present).png


The socialist growth formula was outdated by 1960s and had we had courage to move differently, we could've seen the results, which we had to wait till 91-92 post liberalization.
 
:tup:
He was actually living in a past and unfortunately the restrictive kind of governance he and subsequent Congress led governments had meant we were forced to live in a very constrained manner. India had the good fortune of having a sound education system in place and for people who came into mainstream economy equipped with good quality education, the above environment meant, there were little opportunities. Had we been a freer economy, private entrepreneurship, would have meant our economy moving on a different trajectory at a much different speed, rather than following Hindu Growth rate.
View attachment 310250 View attachment 310251

The socialist growth formula was outdated by 1960s and had we had courage to move differently, we could've seen the results, which we had to wait till 91-92 post liberalization.


Well said. The same thing China did 10 years earlier than us and they are 10 years ahead in economy.

I agree...but it does not excuse Nehru for being a complete idealogue of strictly peaceful nuclear research...and only a cursory attention to weapons. A whole decade was wasted in the 50s and large part of 60s too when the aim should have been to get a nuke ready by any means for when anyone in the neighbourhood tests and test immediately after. We had great scientists under Homi Bhabha, just needed a leader to give the direction there.

We would have been in the NPT and probably permanent UNSC by now....and been both independent in foreign policy along with membership in all the technology related organisations like NSG.

This whole world will be peaceful and everyone will be a friend of India was a terrible philosophy....along with his leftist socialist utopia crap.


He was a ideological fool.
 
Due to first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s rejection of a US offer, India lost in the nuclear race. US President John F Kennedy had offered India the chance to develop and detonate a nuclear device much before China’s test in 1964.
Somehow, I feel it was a prudent decision. This happened in 1950's when India had a lot more things to concentrate on.
It's not as if America was offering nuclear tech on a platter to India. May be we could not afford it.
 
:tup:
He was actually living in a past and unfortunately the restrictive kind of governance he and subsequent Congress led governments had meant we were forced to live in a very constrained manner. India had the good fortune of having a sound education system in place and for people who came into mainstream economy equipped with good quality education, the above environment meant, there were little opportunities. Had we been a freer economy, private entrepreneurship, would have meant our economy moving on a different trajectory at a much different speed, rather than following Hindu Growth rate.
View attachment 310250 View attachment 310251

The socialist growth formula was outdated by 1960s and had we had courage to move differently, we could've seen the results, which we had to wait till 91-92 post liberalization.

Actually public education system design inherited was decent. But it was not expanded and scaled in the proper proportion after independence to the size of India's population. Thats why literacy rate increased very slowly compared to many other developing countries. Too much extraction+transfer concerning the socialist programs of heavy industry, central bureaucracy and other such things which turned into big sinkholes for whatever resources India somehow was able to make/borrow.
 
Somehow, I feel it was a prudent decision. This happened in 1950's when India had a lot more things to concentrate on.
It's not as if America was offering nuclear tech on a platter to India. May be we could not afford it.


You totally lost the point. If it was American test, if they would have not transferred anything to us, than also it would have stopped war with China in 1962.


You know the funny, side is Nehru gave the same reason to not join UNSC. :D
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom