Kargil Confrontation and India’s Nuclear Policy

Introduction

After World War II, the 1998 nuclear tests by the two newly independent states, India and Pakistan, had gained all the attention. India and Pakistan have been in continuous small-scale battles with each other, and this mainly involved high-tech arms and guns that were ready to lay the lives of millions. During this phase, both the countries were evolving in terms of their weapons and continued building an infrastructure that could aid them during any military emergency. After the nuclear tests were run, the independent states were asked to check the nuclear doctrines or the nuclear policy for keeping the nuclear arms in control. 

Lahore declaration 

In February 1999, the Lahore summit meeting was held, which dealt with the concept of focusing on nuclear policy. The attention was shifted from disarmament to forming a nuclear power control policy. 

The summit was held in Lahore, where the then prime minister of India, Late Mr. A.B. Vajpayee, and the then prime minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif met. They discussed the harmful consequences of using nuclear weapons and the check necessary for regulating this nuclear policy. The foreign ministers of both countries signed the memorandum and agreed to reduce nuclear arms, which was temporary. However, this was about minimising the threats, and it wasn’t implemented strictly. 

The Kargil War

It was just the end of the Lahore meet. Still, ironically the meeting didn’t resolve its purpose, and soon after the meeting in Lahore, the tensions resumed to what it was in May 1999, just one year after the nuclear tests in 1998. The situation of war broke out between India and Pakistan. Soon after this, the Pakistani militants crossed the LOC line, which divides Pakistan Kashmir from Kashmir in India. Both the parties were on the battleground fighting the battles and dealt with heavy casualties. After the 1971 war that led to the independence of Bangladesh, India used the power of the air force for the first time. The arms were incorporated, and more efficient mechanisms were adopted. During this phase, both the countries started exercising their military force and accumulating more armaments. Few political leaders of India were also of the view that Kashmir should be taken away from Pakistan. Also, there was news that India burned and destroyed the whole channel of travelling from Pakistan to LOC.

Pakistan later denied the claims that the Pakistani troops crossed the LOC and waged war, but the international community was not ready to buy that excuse. India got the support of the other nations, while Pakistan was isolated. Later, Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister of Pakistan, flew to the USA to meet the then-president Bill Clinton and talk about the issues here. He was also informed about the withdrawal of troops that needs to be practised, or else India might wage war. Amidst this, there were reports that India was ready with the nuclear weapons if the withdrawal by the Pakistani prime minister would not have taken place. Then it would have been an event of significant casualty and destruction. 

Kargil left a message for the two independent states, India and Pakistan, and the international communities that any small effect would result in a disastrous consequence. Thus, it is necessary to check the mechanisms of attacks and wars. 

Nuclear policy India

In August 1999, after the Kargil war, the National security advisory board released its draft on Indian National security and the nuclear doctrines. Which is still in the draft format, and no official statements are released, but through this draft, the stance of India is postured. The DND notifies that ‘India shall pursue a doctrine of credible minimum nuclear deterrence. India also states to be “operationally prepared,” which means that they can deploy the nuclear weapons through the vehicles, and the stance of India on that, according to DND, is the deployment of nuclear weapons would involve a ‘triad of aircraft, mobile land-based missiles, and sea-based assets.” The statement does not signify the amount when they mention ‘minimum’ nuclear accumulation. 

While in January 2003 Indian government published the official doctrine or the nuclear policy that stated ‘nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage.’ The DND does not signify and explain the ‘minimum nuclear deterrence, but it does say that India would never do the first strike with the help of nuclear agents. If they ever use nuclear weapons in the fight, it would always respond to the attack, or we can say it as retaliation. Thus, the stance of India is not stable, but yes, we do get a rough idea of what is expected in terms of nuclear armaments from India.

Conclusion

The Kargil war had an immense impact on India and Pakistan’s two states. This Kargil confrontation and India nuclear policy amalgamation depict the action and its consequences. It narrates to us how the whole situation of the war unravelled for the world and its position that deployed huge sums of military generals. Through this war, the nuclear powers and the destruction they can cause were highlighted, and the interference of the international communities did great merit for preventing a large-scale war. 

Over and above the desire to avoid war and a potential nuclear catastrophe, the large costs imposed by nuclear armaments on the already poor economies, and the environmental impacts of manufacturing and testing these weapons have been major motivating factors over the decrease in the usage of nuclear weapons.