<I>Dragon Fire</I>, not just another work of of fiction

Dragon Fire, not just another work of of fiction
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

NEW DELHI, AUG 29: The fictional scenario of Chinese nuclear strikes on New Delhi and Mumbai drawn in a book written by a veteran BBC journalist was today termed as "plausible" by leading defence experts, lending support to the controversial views of Defence Minister George Fernandes.

Commending the book Dragon Fire by Humphrey Hawksley, Fernandes expressed the hope that nobody dismisses it as "one more work of fiction". The political and historical backdrop against which the book is written "is real", he said.

Defence analysts said the scenario of nuclear strikes by China on the two Indian cities in 2007 was "plausible" and the import of remarks by Fernandes was not out of place.

They felt that a "strategic collusion" between China and Pakistan could be a "real threat" to India particularly with Beijing being a "more potent factor".

Former Home and Defence Secretary N N Vohra said the tale of Sino-Pakistani aggression against a restrained India portrayed in Hawksley's book could be "consequently credible" while former Foreign Secretary Mani Dixit maintained that the author's conclusion was "somewhat oversimplified" but could be "logical".

Vohra, Dixit, IDSA Director Jasjit Singh, former deputy Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. Satish Nambiar and Rear Admiral (retd.) Raja Menon were among others participating in two separate discussions for Doordarshan and SAB TV anchored by Karan Thapar on the book.

However, former Prime Minister I K Gujral, who was part of a discussion, dismissed the portrayal in the book as "fiction" asserting that "I do not not think anybody in this world mad enough to resort to the use of nuclear weapons".

To a question on the strategic details given in the book, Vohra said such tactical details were not easily available even if they were not classified while Dixit felt that the author, who was posted in Sri Lanka during the IPKF operations, could have spoken to sources in the army.

Agreeing with Gujral's views, Satish Nambiar, however, said that lessons needed to be drawn from the catastrophic portrayal and India should be prepared for the worst case scenario.

He said India and China in the next 15 to 20 years, would not only be competing with China in the economic sector, but also in the military field and observed that he was not too sure whether the National security planner was taking that "rivalry" into account "seriously".

Dixit said that China has always been a factor as far as assessment of our security perception goes, especially because the 1962 aggresion and the Sino-Pakistan axis could be viewed a "threat" in a conflict situation. This was particularly so keeping in view the power structures in China and Pakistan, he said.

Ruling out intervention from outside in the scenario portrayed in the book, he warned that "when the chips are down nobody comes to help except the parties concerned".

He said the view that India was a "soft state" was changing now as "certain awareness" about the country's security was growing.

The former Foreign Secretary recalled that there were 26 occasions between 1946 and 1999 when the world was on the brink of a nuclear conflict and such situations were saved by force of reason. Hawksley's book could point towards a "27th" such occassion, he added.

The defence analysts were of the view that the presence of Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama and the 17th Karmapa in India were also factors to be taken into account.

They, however, said the book indicates that India, Pakistan and China did not act responsibly as nuclear weapon states during the crisis.

Jasjit Singh ridiculed any possible Pakistani perception that India would not retaliate in a given conflict situation while citing the example of last year's Kargil war.