(Reuters) - India's opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), widely tipped to form the next government, pledged on Monday to revise the country's nuclear doctrine, whose central principle is that New Delhi would not be first to use atomic weapons in a conflict.
Unveiling its election manifesto, the party gave no details,
but sources involved in drafting the document said the "no-first-use" policy introduced after India conducted a series of nuclear tests in 1998 would be reconsidered.
Arch-rival Pakistan, which responded within weeks that year by conducting tests of its own, does not profess "no first use".
The BJP, which was in power at the time of India's underground blasts, appears to be on the cusp of returning to government under the leadership of Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist many expect would adopt a muscular foreign policy.
The BJP made no mention of reviewing nuclear policy in its manifesto for the previous elections in 2009.
Opinion polls have consistently shown that the BJP will emerge as the biggest party in the five-week election that began on Monday. They suggest that, while the party is likely to fall short of the parliamentary majority needed to rule on its own, it would have the best chance to form a coalition government.
Two aides to Modi told Reuters in the run-up to the vote that if he becomes prime minister, India would get tougher in territorial disputes with China and more robust with Pakistan over attacks by Islamist militants based there.
In its manifesto, the party said it would seek friendly relations with neighbors, but - without naming any country - vowed to "deal with cross-border terrorism with a firm hand" and take a "strong stand and steps" when required.
India adopted a no-first-use policy at a time when it was under pressure from punitive embargoes by Western nations for its nuclear tests, but since then it has been unofficially accepted as a nuclear power.
The United States struck a deal with New Delhi in 2008 to give it access to civilian nuclear technology as well as finance even while it carried on with its weapon program.
The no-first-use policy was based on a premise that India would retaliate so massively against a nuclear strike that an enemy would not contemplate such a move in the first place.
However, a source who advises the BJP said there has been significant debate in recent years about being bound to the policy given the advances of Pakistan's nuclear capability.
He said Pakistan's nuclear inventory may have already overtaken that of its neighbor, and it has claimed progress in miniaturization of weapons for use on the battlefield.
"Do we need tactical weapons? This issue was never raised and discussed because at the time it was not a concern." said another source involved in drawing up the manifesto.
"MAD" DOCTRINE
Murli Manohar Joshi, head of a committee that framed the BJP's nuclear policy, declined to spell out whether no-first-use could be discarded. "Read the manifesto," he told Reuters. "It has to be in sync with geostrategic conditions."
There was no immediate reaction from the Pakistan government or its military, which controls foreign and defense policy.
A former Pakistani national security adviser, retired Major-General Mahmud Ali Durrani, said he would not be concerned if India revised the central tenet of its nuclear doctrine.
"I don't think it will be of great consequence," he said. "The nuclear doctrine here is MAD (mutually assured destruction). If one side does it, the other side has enough to cause unacceptable damage in response."
Durrani said there was more concern in Pakistan about the "overall attitude" of Modi, who was chief minister of the western Indian state of Gujarat in 2002 when more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were slaughtered in mob violence.
Modi has always vehemently denied that he allowed, or even encouraged, the bloodshed, driven by a Hindu nationalist agenda, and a Supreme Court inquiry found no evidence to prosecute him.
The BJP manifesto set out its Hindu nationalist leanings, with a vow to explore building a temple at the site of a mosque in northern India that was torn down by zealots 22 years ago, potentially putting a deeply controversial issue back into play.
"There's a religious right in the BJP so they want to acknowledge that without making it the centerpiece of the manifesto," said Ashok Malik, a political columnist. "I don't think the BJP is going to take it forward as a political movement."
The party also made a commitment to withdrawing a special autonomous status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir state, India's only Muslim-majority region, which many believe prolongs ambiguity over the status of a territory claimed by Pakistan.
It added that it would aim for the return of Hindus who left Kashmir when the region was roiled by an Islamist insurgency.
(Additional reporting by
Frank Jack Daniel in NEW DELHI and
Katharine Houreld in ISLAMABAD; Editing by
Raju Gopalakrishnan)
India's BJP puts 'no first use' nuclear policy in doubt| Reuters
The idea you see , is not to kill every human being on the other side , that is impossible but rather to make sure that the adversary ceases to function as a state/country and inflict " unacceptable damage " . Now , since Islamabad has the capability to ensure both things with 100+ warheads and diverse delivery systems , I do not just see the argument there . The effects of a nuclear detonation are neither limited to the ground zero nor to the initial blast . The massive environmental changes follow next . Pockets of populations will survive , but there wont be any India or Pakistan - those words will be long gone . In a highly irradiated environment after a nuclear exchange , people will not looking to enforce the writ , collect taxes , make the borders safe and secure , work for a welfare state and for the betterment of living standards or whatever a country/state does . They will rather be trying hard to survive or wishing for death from what they see around them - it will be a grim scenario . I would not gloat about it . So even if those one billion people survive a nuclear war , there would be no " we " , just a group of people living on a piece of land .
