India: Largest democracy and smallest debate?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. See the contribution of Bernd W. Kubbig on the US in this issue.

2. Itty Abraham, ‘Civilian Scientists and Military Technologies: India's “Strategic Enclave”’, Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Winter 1992), pp.231–52.

3. Interview with a senior retired Army officer, New Delhi, 12 Feb. 2004.

4. One report suggests that Russia offered the S-300 PMU to India in 1995. See Sergei Blagov, ‘Russian Missiles to Guard Skies Over Vietnam’, 5. Sept. 2003,  < www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EI05Ag02.html > .

5. ‘Agreement on S-300 ABM Likely’, Strategic Affairs, 1 Sept. 2001,  < www.stratmag.com/issue2Sep-1/page02.htm > .

6. Gregory Koblentz, ‘Viewpoint: Theater Missile Defense and South Asia: A Volatile Mix’, The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Spring–Summer 1997), pp.54–62.

7. Ibid., p.55.

8. ‘India Shops for Russian Arms’, 18 June 1998,  < www.rediff.com/news/1998/jun/18bomb8.htm >  see also ‘India, Russia Sign Major Defence Agreements’, Indian Express, 5 Oct. 2004,  < www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20001005/ifr05025.html > .

9. Atul Aneja, ‘Indo-Israeli Partnership for New Missile Shield’, The Hindu, 5 Sept. 2001.

10. B. Muralidhar Reddy, ‘Pak Concerned Over Arrow Missile Sale’, The Hindu, 5 March 2003; US Department of State, Daily Press Briefing for July 22, 2002 (transcript),  < www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2002/12098.htm >  Richard Speier, ‘Arrows for India?’, Policy Watch, No. 785, 3 Sept. 2003,  < www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch2003/785.htm > .

11. Speier, ‘Arrows for India?’ (note 10).

12. ‘US May Play Spoilsport on Arrow Purchase’, The Hindu, 26 Oct. 2003; ‘India, US Wrap Up Missile Defense Talks’, Aerospace Daily, 21 Jan. 2003,  < www.mtholyoke.edu/org/cwp/projects/us_armscontrol/india_us_bmd_talks.htm > .

13. ‘India Ditches Arrow, Seeks PAC-3’, Middle East Newsline, 22 Jan. 2004,  < www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/january/01_22_2.html > .

14. Shishir Gupta, ‘US Clears Sale of Latest Patriot Anti-missile System to India’, Indian Express, 4 June 2005,  < www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id = 72658 > .

15. ‘India Trying to Design ABM on US Lines: Kalam’, Hindustan Times, 4 Jan. 2000,  < www.mtholyoke.edu/org/cwp/projects/us_armscontrol/hindutimes_kalam.htm >  ‘India Plans an Early Indigenous Anti-Ballistic Missile System’, Press Trust of India,  < www.mtholyoke.edu/org/cwp/projects/us_armscontrol/us_india_bmd_coop.htm >  ‘Electronic Systems Alone Cannot Stop Incursions’, The Hindu, 22 April 2000.

16. ‘India, US Wrap Up Missile Defense Talks’, Aerospace Daily, 21 Jan. 2003,  < www.mtholyoke.edu/org/cwp/projects/us_armscontrol/india_us_bmd_talks.htm > .

17. Prasun K. Sengupta, Which Way is India's BMD/AEW System Headed?,  < www.indiadefence.com/BMD&AEW.htm > .

18. Sanjay Badri-Maharaj, ‘Ballistic Missile Defence for India’, Indian Air Force – The IAF Today,  < www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/BMD.html > .

19. Koblentz, ‘Viewpoint: Theater Missile Defense and South Asia’ (note 6).

20. Praful Bidwai, ‘India's Abject Surrender’, Frontline, Vol. 18, No. 10 (12–25 May 2001),  < www.flonnet.com/fl1810/18101150.htm > .

21. For a history and analysis of India's National Security Council structure, including the National Security Advisory Board, see Shyam Babu, ‘India's National Security Council: Stuck in the Cradle?’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 34, No. 2 (June 2003), pp.215–30.

22. On how such institutional structures in the US and UK affect military doctrines, see Deborah D. Avant, ‘The Institutional Sources of Military Doctrine: Hegemons in Peripheral Wars’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Dec. 1993), pp.409–30.

23. Itty Abraham, The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the Post-Colonial State (New York: Zed Books, 1998).

24. ‘India, US Wrap Up Missile Defense Talks’ (note 16).

25. Aneja, ‘Indo-Israeli Partnership for New Missile Shield’ (note 9); see also C. Raja Mohan, ‘Countering Pak.’s Nuclear Blackmail', The Hindu, 1 Jan. 2003.

26. Government of India, Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine (New Delhi: National Security Advisory Board, 17 Aug. 1999),  < http://meaindia.nic.in/disarmament/dm17aug99.htm > .

27. Prime Minister's Office, Cabinet Committee on Security Reviews Progress in Operationalizing India's Nuclear Doctrine, 4 Jan. 2003,  < http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2003/rjan2003/04012003/r040120033.html > .

28. Ibid.

29. Krishnaswamy Subrahamanyam, ‘Essence of Deterrence’, Times of India, 7 Jan. 2003.

30. Ibid.

31. The agreement regarded advance notification of missile tests, upgrading of the existing hotline between the Directors-General of Military Operations of India and Pakistan, and the setting up of an additional hotline between the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries.

32. Gopal Ratnam and Vivek Raghuvanshi, ‘Patriot Threatens Indo-Pak Balance’, Defense News, 13 Oct. 2003, p.1.

33. For example, the January 2003 statement declares that India will retaliate ‘massively’, but it is not clear if this should be read as a doctrine of massive retaliation. The Indian government has not subsequently clarified the issue.

34. Bruce Riedel, ‘American Diplomacy and the 1999 Kargil Summit at Blair House’, Policy Paper Series (Center for the Advanced Study of India: Philadelphia, 2002),  < www.sas.upenn.edu/casi/reports/RiedelPaper051302.htm > .

35. Ibid.

36. Sonika Gupta and Arpit Rajain, Interview with General V.P. Malik, in eid. (eds), Nuclear Stability in South Asia (New Delhi: Konrad Adenauer Foundation/Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies/Manohar, 2003), p.158.

37. Ibid.

38. ‘Fernandes Fears Pak May Use Nuclear Weapons’, Rediff.com, 29 June 1999,  < www.rediff.com/news/1999/jun/29fer.htm > .

39. ‘Deterrence Theory Has Worked: Musharraf’, The Hindu, 19 June 2002.

40. See the contribution of Bernd W. Kubbig on the US in this issue.