The following is from my press release of January 25, 2008:- The bottom line is that India must have military supremacy over all nations of the world -- which in this age means nuclear supremacy -- and since the United States is the most powerful nation in the world today, India's principal task is to attain nuclear supremacy over the United States and that cannot be attained by depending on the United States or other countries for 'aid'; India is quite capable of attaining nuclear supremacy over the United States and [India's C.I.A.-RAW-controlled media] try to prevent it by promoting foreign dependence and imports, etc., and this is part of the tactics foreign intelligence agencies use, through Indians on their payroll, to keep India down. India has no shortage of manpower and my proposal about money [see 'How India's Economy Can Grow 30% Per Year Or More' in my blog, 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.', which can be found by a Yahoo/Google search with the title] can be used to make India both militarily and economically number one in the world but military supremacy -- that is, nuclear supremacy -- is even more important than economic supremacy because, without it, it can be subjugated and enslaved. All of the invaders who conquered and enslaved India came from much poorer countries than 'the Golden Hind'. I have said that India should set up ten parallel DRDOs, each the size of the present DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation) and let three of them compete for a successful tank design, three for a successful figher plane and so on and let the best design win. The Soviet Union had a system of internal competition among government-owned design and production organisations of this kind and it can work for India also. Another important point is that weapons such as tanks and fighter planes which carry human beings are a lot more difficult to design and produce than, say, nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles which give a million times or more returns for the same investment of time and effort ('bang for the buck') so far as increasing a country's military power is concerned. Since India's principal aim should be nuclear supremacy, it should focus on designing and producing intercontinental ballistic missiles more than tanks and fighter planes; if you have nuclear supremacy over the United States, most other defence-related issues will take care of themselves. And, as I said, designing and building ICBMs that will do the job can be done a lot faster and require fewer resources, though India has the resources to build both ICBMs and tanks and fighter planes. The main advantage of focusing on ICBMs is time; it will bring India military supremacy a lot sooner than giving a lot of attention to tanks and fighter planes (which will never bring India military supremacy over the United States). Another point is that although India should build nuclear-propelled, nuclear-armed submarines carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles (SSBNs), like the ATV it is building, building these weapons platforms (SSBNs) is a lot more time and resource-consuming than building ICBMs that can be launched from road and rail-mobile vehicles. It is a mistake to make India's nuclear arsenal primarily a second strike resource (which is what SSBNs are good at); India's nuclear arsenal should primarily be for a first strike -- that is how you gain nuclear supremacy, by being able to carry out a successful first strike -- and a sufficiently large arsenal of road and rail-mobile ICBMs can be produced a lot faster than an arsenal based on SSBNs. Again, time is important. Avoiding foreign 'help' is not a matter of 'false pride'; avoiding foreign help is essential for India's nuclear supremacy. See my blog, 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.', for a fuller treatment.
This is what I have said about the necessity for India of aiming for nuclear supremacy over the United States:-
----------START QUOTE----------
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Why Nuclear Supremacy
I have explained the concept of nuclear supremacy in the article titled “What is nuclear supremacy?”. In this connection, some basic facts have to be understood:
1) The law of the jungle still prevails in international relations. Striving for military supremacy -- which in this age means nuclear supremacy -- over all nations needs no explanation; its necessity is as obvious as the fact that water flows downwards. Only a country such as India with a thousand year history of slavery to various foreign invaders is unable to see the obvious.
2) Geopolitics, so far as it concerns India and the West, is all about white vs. non-white. The same behavior can have more than one possible explanations; my assertion of the role of race (white/non-white) in determining the United States' behavior toward Indians and India is based on observations made as a behavior scientist in the United States where I have lived for 41 years [see the biography of Satish Chandra -- that's me -- in Marquis' Who's Who In America, 2008 and earlier editions]. What is often referred to as beneficial American 'aid' is actually poison; it is neither needed nor desirable and keeps India from developing its own capabilities. In the nuclear deal, it is not even aid but slavery. The aggressiveness of the United States toward non-white countries is such that there is no option for India but to attain nuclear supremacy over it and put this mad dog to sleep (meaning death). This is the reality and there is nothing very surprising about it. There is no need for India to be another Iran; India has four times the population of the United States and produces 7 times the number of engineers per year that the United States does. It is the effect of a thousand years of slavery and the British rule because of which Indians think of India as an Iran which needs to be afraid of the United States.
3) How did this slavery to the white man come about? An answer is in The Guardian (August 24, 2007, Internet, report by Randeep Ramesh): "India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...': Author says British reprisals involved the killing of 10 m, spread over 10 years:..." Present day Indians’ behaviour is profoundly affected by the terrorization and subjugation inflicted on them by the British. This came on top of the terrorization and subjugation inflicted by Muslim invaders in the preceding 800 years. Since Muslims are no longer strong, Indians are coming out of fear of the Muslims but the fear of the white man keeps getting deeper and deeper as the white man’s power in relation to Indians keeps increasing. India is faced with an even deeper slavery to the Americans with the nuclear deal and all the other prongs it comes with. Attaining strategic nuclear parity, then supremacy and using this supremacy to eliminate this incomparably greater threat, will be India's real War of Independence. One does not need to refer to the holocaust beginning 1857 to know the incomparably greater American threat and its consequences, which I know directly but which remains a secret from the Indian people.
There is a simple way to bring India out of its slavery and identify collaborators in India's slavery to American imperialism. Start with India's Army Chief and ask "Are you in favour of strategic nuclear parity with, or supremacy over, the United States as a national objective?" If the answer is not 'Yes', he should be shot on the spot. The same for all other generals and admirals, etc. The same for Manmohan Singh and members of his Cabinet. The same for leaders of political parties. The same for journalists writing on the nuclear deal. The same for 'strategic analysts', etc.
4) India has no shortage of manpower and my proposal about money (see, for example, my articles ‘How India‘s economy can grow 30% per year’ and ‘India’s technological and economic emancipation’ ) can be used to make India both militarily and economically number 1 in the world but military supremacy -- that is, nuclear supremacy -- is even more important than economic supremacy because, without it, it can be subjugated and enslaved (let's leave out who does the subjugation and enslavement). All of the invaders who conquered and enslaved India came from much poorer countries than 'the Golden Hind'.
5) Aiming for nuclear parity with the United States, instead of nuclear supremacy over it, is not an option because the United States, by its nature, will always be striving for nuclear supremacy. This threat -- the United States -- must die for India to live.
The following is what I said, in a release to the press some time ago, about strategic nuclear parity with the United States:
The root cause of the national suicide being committed through the nuclear deal is a failure of political parties to demand at least strategic parity with the United States-- parity with the United States requires at least ten thousand nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them to continental United States territory-- as an objective and criterion. While the demand for a Constitutional amendment requiring Parliament's ratification of such agreements in the BJP's statement of August 4 '07 is a long-overdue step, a national objective of strategic parity, at a minimum, with all countries of the world, including the United States, is essential to guide such decisions. This is not something optional but essential. I have said "Justice can only be delivered by your weapons" and showed "the supremacy of weapons in matters of justice" (this includes justice as between nations) and said that "The nonsense about 'minimal nuclear deterrence' is seen in the recolonisation of Pakistan, which has a 'minimal nuclear deterrent', by the United States". Just recently, a United States presidential candidate (Clinton) was "refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan" ( Washingtonpost.com, August 2 '07) and another U.S. presidential candidate (Obama) said he will undertake an "invasion" of Pakistan, which-- if Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, defends itself-- will inevitably involve the use of nuclear weapons. India is constantly under the same threat, whether spoken or not, in all dealings with the United States. The BJP should look at its own statement dated December 27, 2005 on foreign policy at its National Executive Meeting which says Pakistan "strives for strategic parity" with India and, about "Indo-US relations", says "What must be at the core of our understanding is that 'strategic partnership' is ordinarily between two equals... accepting an asymmetrical relationship is not 'strategic partnership', it would be capitulation... Which is why the UPA's lack of understanding in dealing with the US is so worrying. With the UPA government's obsequious policies [and] a subservient relationship with the United States". The BJP must clearly understand that the "two equals" must, above all, be equal in nuclear weapons. By that I mean equal in nuclear strength, not just in protocol; even the puppet presidents of Iraq and Afghanistan are given guards of honour and treated as equal in protocol by the United States. I have shown that India has the means to quickly and easily not just attain strategic (nuclear) parity with the United States but surpass it in economic prosperity and well-being (see, for example, my article ‘How India’s economy can grow 30% per year’
. These objectives must be clearly stated in policy statements. Article 51 of the Constitution, which says "The State shall endeavour to--... (b) maintain just and honorable relations between nations;", must be amended to "The State shall endeavour to--... (b) maintain just and honorable relations between nations by attaining and maintaining strategic parity, at a minimum, with all nations of the world in its weapons and by assisting victims of imperialism acquire necessary weapons, including nuclear weapons;".
This Article (Article 51) of the Constitution, even as it exists now, provides a basis for Constitutional challenges, in court, to foreign policy acts that constitute "obsequious policies" toward and "subservient relationship" with the United States or that make India's foreign policy serve the United States' imperialist policies toward Iraq and Iran, etc. Recently the Supreme Court rejected a PIL seeking direction to the Central Government to seek Parliament's approval for the nuclear deal on the grounds that it would be interference in the government's treaty-making powers (a Constitutional amendment will be needed for that), but my PIL dated July 20, 2007 seeks "action against the Prime Minister, such as dismissal from office and prosecution for treason, for violating his oath of office to uphold the sovereignty of India by making joint statements, agreements and negotiations with the United States, in connection with said nuclear deal, that are highly injurious to such sovereignty ....", as indeed is clear even without the Hyde Act but particularly if, for example, the 123 agreement is read in conjunction with the Hyde Act. I have not heard anything from the Supreme Court regarding my PIL but if more such PILs are filed, seeking action against the Prime Minister on the grounds of violating his oath of office (which is in the Third Schedule of the Constitution) to uphold India's sovereignty, it will get the Supreme Court's attention-- and no Constitutional amendment is needed for PILs on these grounds.
You cannot uphold the country's sovereignty without the weapons to defend and uphold its sovereignty, which requires strategic (nuclear) parity with the United States. The nuclear deal, in all its aspects and processes-- joint statements, agreements, negotiations, etc.-- injures India's ability to attain strategic (nuclear) parity with the United States and, thus, injures India's ability to defend and uphold its sovereignty and, thus, injures India's sovereignty and constitutes failure to uphold India's sovereignty. This is so even if there were no Hyde Act, no 123 agreement, etc. or no deal is finally signed or executed.
Article 51 of the Constitution also requires India's government to endeavour to eliminate threats to just and honorable relations between nations and, since the United States is the principal transgressor of and threat to such relations between nations, endeavour to attain strategic nuclear supremacy over the United States and take measures, military and non-military, to eliminate this threat.
For other countries of the world, this means getting out of the United States-sponsored denial regimes such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, International Atomic Energy Agency, etc. and helping each other acquire nuclear weapons to cope with this threat to just and honorable relations between nations.
As I have shown above, even India’s Constitution requires striving to attain nuclear supremacy over the United States.
---------END QUOTE---------
Satish Chandra
