In defence of India’s nuclear supremacy

Geopolitics, as it concerns India and the West, is all about white vs. non-white. As the most powerful white country, that is uncontrollably aggressive toward non-white countries, the United States is the greatest threat to India..

I HAVE explained the concept of nuclear supremacy in my article titled ’What is nuclear supremacy?’ on Merinews. In this connection, some basic facts have to be understood:

i. 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.
ii. 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. 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. 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 than the United States. 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.
iii. 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…’: the author says British reprisals involved the killing of 10 million spread over 10 years. The present day Indians’ behaviour is profoundly affected by the terror and subjugation inflicted on them by the British. This came on top of the terror and subjugation inflicted by Muslim invaders in the preceding 800 years. Since Muslims are no longer strong, Indians are no more afraid 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.
iv. India is faced with an even deeper slavery to the Americans with the nuclear deal and all the other wrongs that comes with it. 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.
v. India has no shortage of manpower and my proposal about money (see my article ‘How India‘s economy can grow 30% per year’ and ‘India’s technological and economic emancipation’ on Merinews) can be used to make India both militarily and economically Number 1 in the world but militarily supreme — that is, nuclear supremacy.
vi. All of the invaders who conquered and enslaved India came from much poorer countries than ’the Golden Hind’. 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.

As I have shown above, even India’s Constitution requires striving to attain nuclear supremacy over the United States. 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. Justice can only be delivered by your weapons and the supremacy of weapons in matters of justice (this includes justice as between nations). 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 (, 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.The UPA government’s obsequious policies [and] a subservient relationship with the United States is hurting India. 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 cent per year’ on Merinews). 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” towards and “subservient relationship” with the United States or that make India’s foreign policy serve the United States’ imperialist policies towards 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 Agencyetc. and helping each other acquire nuclear weapons to cope with this threat to just and honorable relations between nations
CJ: Satish Chandra ,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: