Op Sindoor: Conventional Operations Under the Nuclear Shadow

Posted on by
Reply

For CSDR dt May 28, 20225

Since 1998, when both India and Pakistan emerged as nuclear-weapon-states after undertaking a series of tests, the India-Pakistan crises have followed a predictable pattern. The first escalatory step is invariably a terrorist attack by one of the numerous terrorist groups based in Pakistan; India’s outrage and political, diplomatic, economic and, (since 2016) measured kinetic retaliation against specific terrorist targets, signalling a possible closure to hostilities; Pakistan’s military retaliation that sets into motion a cycle of escalation, often accompanied by nuclear sabre rattling designed to energise the international community, leading finally to a de-escalation with both countries getting a face saving exit.

The terrorist attacks permit Pakistan a degree of deniability unless a perpetrator has been captured (as happened in the Mumbai 2008 attack) though the deniability claims carry little conviction, given Pakistan’s well documented long-standing policy of nurturing such jihadi outfits. India has been a slow learner in developing and acquiring the intelligence and kinetic means to be able to track and engage in precision targeting of terrorist groups inside Pakistan. Though subjected to major terrorist attacks, especially since the 1990s, the recourse to kinetic retaliation only began in 2016. After Pahalgam, Prime Minister has described it as an expansive “new normal.”

Developing kinetic retaliation capability

In 2001, following the attack on Indian parliament by five JeM terrorists, India mobilised its ground forces with the strike formations. The process lasted weeks, giving Pakistan adequate time to prepare its counter-mobilisation. Since the U.S. needed Pakistan’s military cooperation for its Op Enduring Freedom launched against the Taliban in October 2001, and the Pakistani military claimed that it was stretched on the India front, Pakistan was prevailed upon to provide assurances of “not allowing its territory to be used for terrorist attacks against India.” The exercise in coercive diplomacy helped provide a reprieve for seven years.

The 26/11 Mumbai attacks are often called India’s 9/11 moment. A group of 10 LeT militants targeted 12 locations in Mumbai. The carnage lasted four days and claimed 175 lives, including nine militants. Among the dead were 29 foreign nationals from 16 countries, including six from the U.S. The captured militant provided the details of Pakistan’s involvement. While this enabled international condemnation and diplomatic measures to penalise Pakistan, the absence of any kinetic retaliation drew unfavourable comparisons in certain domestic sections with the U.S and Israel. In Pakistan, it led to a growing conviction that its tactical nuclear weapons served as an effective deterrent against any conventional military action by India.

Kinetic retaliation, from Uri to Pahalgam

Realising that its military forces were a blunt instrument ill-equipped to undertake short, sharp punitive operations, India began to build up its capabilities slowly. The 2016 attack on a military camp in Uri by four JeM militants killed 19 soldiers and provided an opportunity to employ kinetic retaliation for the first time. A coordinated set of simultaneous cross-border operations were launched by special teams to neutralise more than half a dozen terrorist launch pads. The operation was successfully projected as a shift to a more punitive approach and these “surgical strikes” was the subject of a successful Bollywood film. Pakistan found a face-saver by denying that there had been any intrusions.

In 2019, a suicide attack on a paramilitary convoy, claimed by JeM, claimed forty lives. With general elections less than two months away, the Modi government had little choice. Days later, Indian authorities announced that the IAF had carried out an air strike on a JeM training camp at Balakot, 65 kms from the LoC, in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province. Once again, it was described as a limited operation against a terrorist location, based on real time intelligence, and therefore pre-emptive and defensive.

Pakistan denied that there was any camp, protested at its air space violation, and the following morning, five Pakistani aircraft entered Indian airspace. Indian fighters scrambled, and in the ensuing dogfight, an Indian pilot ejected, ending up in Pakistani custody. This created a fresh crisis, leading to U.S. involvement to ensure that the pilot was released quickly. The following morning, Pakistan PM Imran Khan announced that Pakistan had demonstrated its capability and resolve by retaliating against India’s intrusion and would return the Indian pilot as a humanitarian gesture, providing a face-saver to both sides.

According to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, senior officials from both countries had been in touch with the U.S. officials, blaming the other for nuclear escalation and threatening retaliation, thereby leading to U.S. involvement. Saudi Arabia and the UAE also claimed to have intervened and counselled restraint.

The Pahalgam attack on April 22 claimed 26 civilian lives. Though a series of political and economic measures were announced including putting in abeyance the Indus Water Treaty, it was evident that the scope of the kinetic retaliation had to be larger. Eventually, nine terrorist locations, including iconic locations such as the LeT and JeM headquarters in Punjab, were targeted using loitering munitions, stand-off air-to-surface missiles and smart bombs. It was emphasised that India had targeted terrorist locations and the operation was over unless Pakistan escalated matters. The next three nights saw an escalation with strikes and counter-strikes, with both sides using drones and standoff missiles though the aircraft remained in their respective airspaces. Once again, senior U.S. officials began to engage as the crisis sharpened and news about the ceasefire was made public by President Trump shortly before the official announcements on May 10.

Evidently, the Modi government’s policy for dealing with Pakistan sponsored terrorist attacks has been evolving, in keeping with improving capabilities. The first Rafale aircraft landed in India in mid-2020, with some of the weapon systems following. The Harop drone fleet was expanded post-2019 and the indigenous Sky Striker drones were ordered in 2021, including with kamikaze versions. Therefore, compared to 2019 Balakot, Indian was better placed to ensure precision targeting and avoid collateral damage, especially in populated areas like Bahawalpur and Muridke.

The lessons from Pahalgam

In his address to the nation on May 12, PM Modi announced that Op Sindoor had redefined the fight against terror and established a “new normal.” This consisted of India’s right to respond militarily since any act of terror was an act of war; India would not be deterred by “nuclear blackmail;” and India would not differentiate between terrorists and their masterminds or the governments sponsoring terrorism. Two new elements can be discerned in this – while claiming a right to military response is not new as it was exercised in 2016 and 2019 too, calling every terror attack an “act of war” expands the scope of the military action that has so far been limited to terrorist locations. Second, putting together the terrorists and the ISI, puts the military on notice but what form this would take is left uncertain. In 2016, 2019 and 2025, India has consistently emphasised that its kinetic action was “non-escalatory” as it was directed at known terrorist locations and not at a military site.

Even though Op Sindoor’s objectives had not been spelt out, it is clear that on May 7, Indian forces demonstrated their capability in identifying and destroying multiple terrorist camps and related infrastructure, across a distance of 800 kms, in a speedily executed, coordinated operation using precision strike weapons. In subsequent days, the operations grew gradually and by May 10, IAF had shown its ability to penetrate Pakistan’s air defence to inflict damage on nearly all Pakistan’s forward air bases and air defence installations. Yet, this did not emerge as the prevailing narrative.

On May 7, Pakistan claimed that five Indian aircraft had been downed, a claim denied by India. The narrative therefore became one of evaluation of Chinese technologies (J-10 and JF-17 aircraft and PL-15E missiles) versus French (Rafale aircraft) and Russian (SU-30 and Mig-29) aircraft. The Indian statement on May 11, “We are in a combat scenario and losses are part of combat…we achieved all our objectives and all our pilots are back home,” if made earlier, would have prevented the misleading commentary and maintained the primacy of the Indian narrative. The fact that the IAF operated under non-escalatory rules of engagement and did not neutralise Pakistani air defences in advance was a signal to assure Pakistan that our strike was only against terrorist targets. It would also have reinforced the impact of the punitive strikes on May 10, in face of repeated Pakistani escalatory provocations.

It is reasonable to assume that the terrorist infrastructure that has been degraded will be rebuilt, presumably also at more inaccessible or concealed locations. It is highly unlikely that the ISI will dismantle the LeT, JeM or the dozen other outfits that it has nurtured over decades. A recent Gallup Pakistan poll revealed that 96 percent of the Pakistanis believe that Pakistan has emerged victorious from the four-day limited conflict. The elevation of the COAS Gen Asim Munir to Field Marshal has been welcomed by the political parties, including the PTI.

The current ceasefire is fragile and could therefore breakdown along the predictable pattern that led to Pahalgam and earlier attacks. A full-scale war like 1971 is not feasible as it is an unaffordable exercise that yields no practical military objectives. Therefore, a key take away is to define narrower objectives that yield desirable outcomes and build capabilities, both kinetic and non-kinetic, accordingly. A realistic objective will combine three elements – degrade terrorist capabilities as decisively as possible; inflict punitive measures, political, economic, and military; and demonstrate national unity and resolve.

Exploring the ‘new normal’

The conception of a ‘new normal’ poses three key questions –                                                             

  1. Does the expansive ‘new normal’ establish deterrence?                                 
  2. Second, if deterrence fails, and there is a terrorist attack, does the ‘new normal’ lead to more rapid escalation, and does it ensure superior escalation management?                                                    
  3. And finally, does it enable de-escalation without external involvement?

Deterrence normally implies ‘deterrence by denial’ coupled with ‘deterrence by punishment.’ ‘Denial’ implies strengthening intelligence capabilities to track infiltration, movement, and communications of terrorists, to plan and prevent such attacks. It also means better preparation to reduce response times unlike in the Pahalgam instance. If the number of casualties were less than five, if the perpetrators had been killed or captured, the attack, though heinous, would have registered on a lower scale. It would deny the adversary the sense of ‘satisfaction’ at having inflicted significant harm and loss.

In case of failure of deterrence-by-denial, punitive deterrence kicks in. The terrorist needs to be convinced that punishment will be certain and severe enough to make the terrorists refrain from the act, in the first place. India has so far declared that its kinetic retaliation was based on hard intelligence and pre-emptive; pre-emption against a terrorist attack has now gained acceptance as a legitimate act of self-defence. However, a terrorist is not always guided by a rational cost benefit analysis as the scourge of suicide attacks demonstrates. Nevertheless, since the terror attacks are often green lighted by the ISI, the certainty of severe punishment does strengthen deterrence.

In the past, the limited kinetic retaliation in 2016 and 2019 failed to establish deterrence. Therefore, deterrence capabilities for both ‘denial’ and ‘punishment’ will need to be strengthened by continuous investments in new technologies, particularly cyber and space, to monitor and penetrate terrorist groups and prevent attacks as also permit engagement without contact and inflict punishment at a distance, if the ‘new normal’ has to prevent future terrorist attacks.

India needs to plan afresh for managing escalation because if every terror attack is to be considered an act of war, and no distinction is to be made between terrorists and their masterminds and sponsors, the response to any future terrorist attack will be larger in scope, raising the prospects of more rapid escalation.

In the Balakot (2019) crisis, an Indian pilot being taken captive in Pakistani territory after his aircraft was shot down, was an unforeseen escalatory development. India demanded his immediate return to maintain the narrative of its successful strike; Pakistan wanted to capitalise on its air superiority. Neither India nor Pakistan could control the escalation, leading to external involvement.

In 2025, the U.S. initially adopted a relatively detached approach – initially condemning the terrorist attack and urging Pakistan to cooperate with India, and after May 7, urging both sides to work together to de-escalate tensions. By May 9, however, the U.S. position shifted and it adopted a more active role.

During the 88-hour crisis, India managed to retain control of escalation. In the initial round, the IAF refrained from targeting Pakistan air defences, a restraint that may have led to higher operational risks. Pakistan’s retaliation was against military targets and not against civilian targets. Even as artillery shelling intensified across the LoC, there was no large-scale mobilisation of ground forces or strike formations. These were signals that both sides were exploring thresholds but not crossing them.

By May 10, the temptation for India to exploit its advantage, having neutralised Pakistan’s forward based air defences was high and could have led to a notch up the escalation ladder. It would have increased Indian reluctance to let Pakistan get a face-saving exit. Finding an off-ramps or de-escalation between nuclear adversaries requires that both sides find a face saver, though backed by competing narratives. To establish superior escalation management, India has to internalise that at every step on the escalation ladder, it has to signal Pakistan towards a face-saver, as was done successfully in the early stages of the Pahalgam crisis. This requires better narrative management so that policy shapes sentiment rather than the other way around.

Finding an off ramps without external involvement creates a different challenge. There is a tacit acknowledgement that Pakistani establishment has been complicit in sponsoring and aiding terrorist attacks in India for decades and India is justified in kinetic retaliation. At the same time, given that both India and Pakistan are nuclear-weapon-states, nuclear sabre rattling during rising tensions grabs international attention with de-escalation emerging as the priority. Since 1998, Pakistan has successfully exploited this opening as this also serves Pakistan by obfuscating the distinction between the perpetrator and the victim of the terrorist attack.

Successive U.S. presidents have played a role in defusing crises since 1998 – President Clinton during the 1999 Kargil crisis, President Bush following the 2001 parliament attack, Presidents Bush, and Obama in 2008-09 following the Mumbai attack, and President Trump in 2019 Balakot and the 2025 Pahalgam crisis. With the sole exception of President Trump, they were prudent in not offering to mediate between India and Pakistan; the current aberration is more a reflection of the disarray in the US administration and President Trump’s propensity for impulsive pronouncements.

During Pahalgam, no nuclear threats were exchanged between India and Pakistan. The only nuclear signalling, presumably directed to the international community was the announcement by the Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on May 9 that a meeting of the National Command Authority was to be held the following day though he backtracked later after the phone call with Secretary of State Rubio. This did not prevent President Trump from claiming on May 12, “We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war. Millions of people could have killed” and repeating the claim after couple of days.

The contrast between Indian and Pakistani reactions to President Trump’s claims is revealing. Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif has repeated thanked President Trump for his mediation and urged him continue mediation on other issues while the Indian Foreign Office spokesperson denied on May 13 that there was any US mediation or any nuclear escalation or signalling and the ceasefire was arrived at bilaterally; further, there was no scope for any mediation and no broader talks at a any neutral venue were planned. Therefore, unlike in 2019, there was neither any nuclear brinkmanship nor any strategic mobilisation.

The ’new normal’ is a shifting line and introduces a degree of ambiguity. The attempt is to see if it strengthens deterrence. So far, both sides have shown an interest in de-escalation. However, this requires a face saver for both sides. This means that each side creates its own narrative of “victory” and can sustain it. As the stronger power, India must calibrate how far it should discredit the Pakistan military to disincentivise it from sponsoring terrorist attacks while keeping it invested in de-escalation. This is necessary to ensure that conventional operations remain below the nuclear threshold despite brinkmanship.

Today, there is an absence of established crisis management mechanisms between India and Pakistan. During Pahalgam, the only channel of communication in operation was the DGMOs hotline. Past practice and experience indicate that in the military hierarchies on both side, there remains a degree of faith in an inbuilt culture of restraint. However, it is possible that a terrorist group may deliberately act to heighten confrontation to sabotage de-escalation, severely testing the culture of restraint. At such moments, until India and Pakistan invest in building crisis management mechanisms and additional communication channels, de-escalation will continue to be out-sourced to external parties.

*****

The New Normal after Pahalgam, India’s Response

Posted on by
Reply

Published in The Hindu on May 17, 2025

Operation Sindoor is on ‘pause’ and though the ceasefire began somewhat shakily on Saturday evening (May 10), it seems to be holding. On May 12, the two Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMO) – India and Pakistan – had a follow-up conversation and discussed further de-escalatory measures to reduce troop presence in the forward areas that had seen a buildup in recent weeks.

Addressing the nation on Monday evening (May 12), Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared, “Operation Sindoor has redefined the fight against terror…setting a new standard and a new normal in counter-terrorism measures.” Kinetic retaliation is not new. The Modi government conducted “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control (LoC) in 2016 after the Uri attack, and an air strike on a Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) camp in Balakot in 2019 following the Pulwama suicide attack. Yet, the Pahalgam response was qualitatively different.  

88 hours to ceasefire

After the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, it was clear that the Indian government would respond with force. The only question of when and in what manner. The measures announced in the days that followed such as reducing diplomatic presence, switching off trade, closing down the Wagah-Attari border crossing, cancelling existing visas, and putting the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance, were a strong response but not a substitute for kinetic retaliation.

The intervening fortnight till May 7 was used in finalising targets for kinetic retaliation and ramping up diplomatic engagement at all levels. Post 2019, Indian authorities were certain that sooner or later, there would be a terrorist attack of a magnitude that would compel a calibrated military response. This demanded planning and periodic updating, based on evolving technical capabilities. Eventually, nine targets were chosen out of nearly two dozen options.  The intense diplomatic engagement at all levels, in Delhi and other key capitals, prepared the ground to ensure an acceptance (though sometimes with caveats) of India’s right to target the terrorists and their infrastructure.  India’s challenge was to restore red lines while managing the escalation narrative and leaving a de-escalation option open.

Shortly after the May 7 early morning strike was concluded, the Pakistan DGMO Maj Gen Kashif Abdullah was informed of the nine locations targeted as these were closely associated with designated terrorist groups, Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT), JeM, and the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. India emphasised that Op Sindoor was against the terrorists and not the Pakistani military or the Pakistani people. It added that if the Pakistani forces responded, India would reserve the right to retaliate.

Pakistan acknowledged the strike (at six locations) and claimed that it had downed between five to six Indian aircraft, including some Rafale fighter jets, though this was denied by India. It offered an off-ramps de-escalation option – Pakistan claiming success in terms of taking down Indian aircraft, playing down the impact of Indian strikes, and taking the issue of violation of its territory to the United Nations Security Council where it is currently a non-permanent member.

However, Pakistan’s military leadership saw it as an opportunity to bolster its faltering image and vowed military retaliation. The following two nights, Pakistan mounted escalating drone intrusions, together with some loitering munitions and missile firings, over 36 locations along the 3,300 kilometre-long border, more with the intent to probe for gaps in India’s air defences. India retaliated, with its declared quid pro quo plus policy, targeting Pakistani air bases and air defence units. However, Pakistan denied its intrusions even as it blamed India for repeated violations and attacks. Its air space remained open for civilian air traffic, prompting an Indian warning on May 9 that this was jeopardising civilian air traffic. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) board meeting on May 9 to approve the next tranche of the IMF Extended Fund Facility (loan to Pakistan) necessitated prudence.  

The night of 9-10 May witnessed a dramatic escalation. Pakistan claimed to have struck 26 Indian targets “to reestablish deterrence after repeated Indian attacks.” India acknowledged “limited damage to equipment and personnel at air force stations Udhampur, Pathankot, Adampur, and Bhuj.” Indian response on the morning of May 10 was ferocious and targeted nine military airfields from Skardu and Chaklala in the north to Rahim Yar Khan and Jacobabad in the south as well as three forward air defence units. The stand-off weapons used included the Scalp and BrahMos missiles as well as Crystal Maze, Hammer and Spice 2000 precision guided munitions.

The previous 24 hours had seen intense diplomatic activity with a flurry of telephone calls between Washington, Islamabad, and Delhi. Following a conversation between the two DGMOs in the afternoon, a ceasefire came into effect at 1700 hours on May 10.

The U.S.’s role

Initially, the U.S. adopted a hands-off approach with Vice President J.D. Vance suggesting on May 8 that the U.S. was not going to get involved “in the middle of a war that is fundamentally none of our business.” However, within 24 hours, the U.S. assessment changed as it picked up signs of more cross-border strikes and reports that Pakistan was scheduling a meeting of its National Command Authority (NCA). While Mr. Vance spoke to PM Modi on the evening of May 9 (Indian time), sharing the U.S.’s concerns about a “dramatic escalation” and again the following day (Indian time), U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir, following it up with calls to his counterparts India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khwaja Asif announced on May 10 that no meeting of the NCA had taken place.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s message on May 10 pre-empted the official announcement about the ceasefire raising questions about the U.S.’s role. The fact is that after 1998, the U.S. has played a role in de-escalating multiple crises: Kargil in 1999, the Indian Parliament attack and Operation Parakram in 2001, Mumbai in 2008 and Balakot in 2019, the exception being the 2016 surgical strikes that Pakistan denied had happened. Yet, none of these instances have led to U.S. mediation and there is little reason to think otherwise this time. There are only two ways of avoiding external intervention – first, increase the economic and military differential with Pakistan, and second, have independent communication channels between the two countries.   

Conflict under the nuclear shadow

Since 1998 when both India and Pakistan emerged as nuclear-weapon-states, Pakistan’s approach has been to reduce the space for conventional war, by flashing the nuclear card and threatening early nuclear use. The objective is to constrain India’s space for a kinetic response to a terrorist attack. However, this is no longer working.  If the 2016 ‘surgical strikes’ made kinetic retaliation the new normal, Balakot enlarged it in 2019 by introducing air power, and Operation Sindoor has expanded it to cover all of Pakistan. So far, India has emphasised that it has been retaliating against terrorist targets – launch pads across the LoC in 2016, Balakot training camp in 2019, and the nine locations now (Operation Sindoor). However, Mr. Modi has added a new dimension.

In the expansive ‘new normal’ that he outlined on May 12, he reiterated India’s right to respond militarily to any terror attack and not be deterred by “nuclear blackmail”, but added that India would not differentiate between terrorists and their masterminds or the governments sponsoring terrorism. This addition puts Pakistani military on notice that the next time, India’s kinetic response under an Operation Sindoor 2.0 may not be limited to terrorist targets. The hardening position is evident in his statement, “terror and talks cannot go together; terror and trade cannot go together; water and blood cannot flow together.”

By expanding the scope of conventional operations below the nuclear threshold, Mr. Modi is seeking to nullify the nuclear overhang but this requires a significant expansion in conventional capabilities. Capabilities to suppress hostile air defences and adopt a network-centric-approach that seamlessly integrates manned and unmanned air systems with satellite-based support for surveillance, communication and targeting, will need to be introduced. Simultaneously, India needs to draw lessons from the intelligence and security lapses that led to Pahalgam, in order to better plan, predict and prevent future Pahalgams. Only then will the expansive ‘new normal’ be a credible deterrent against future terrorist attacks.

*****

Diplomatic Discussions Are Best Held In Camera

Posted on by
Reply

For Trump, It’s All For Good TV

Published in The Print on March 7, 2025

https://theprint.in/opinion/diplomatic-discussions-are-best-held-in-camera-for-trump-its-all-for-good-tv/2537827/

Last Friday, the Oval Office provided an unusual stage for diplomatic theatre that stunned audiences around the world. The live telecast of the unscripted exchange between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a former comedian and US President Donald Trump, a former reality TV star, with J D Vance playing a supporting role, has become the stuff of diplomatic legend, with reactions ranging from applause and awe to shock and horror.

Perhaps, there was a hint of what was to come when Trump remarked “Oh, you are all dressed up,” as he welcomed Zelensky to the White House. Or in an early question by a reporter about why he wasn’t wearing a suit in “United States’ highest office?” But if so, it didn’t register with Zelensky. When Vance praised Trump’s efforts at diplomacy and Zelensky questioned it, Vance belligerently accused him of being “disrespectful” instead of being “thanking the president.” Zelensky remonstrated but Trump intervened, telling him that he didn’t “have the  cards” and blamed him for “gambling with World War III.” Minutes later, Trump ordered the media to leave but added that “This (their spat) is going to be great television.”

Since then, the signalling has continued through media and X. On 1 March, Trump said that “Zelensky is not ready for peace.” The following day, Zelensky said after his London meeting that a peace deal is “still very very far away” angering Trump, who responded that “America will not put up with this for longer.” On 3 March, US announced that it was pausing all aid to Ukraine, even as European leaders were finding ways of repairing the damage. Meanwhile, on Saturday, Elon Musk tweeted “I agree” to a post from someone who wrote, “It’s time to leave NATO and the UN.”

Political leaders make use of media, including social media, for signalling to different audiences, both at home and abroad. But there is a good reason why diplomatic discussions and negotiations are conducted in camera. It permits the parties concerned to protect the image of the leaders, allow diplomatic summitry to maintain the aura of gravitas of diplomatic summitry, and control  the narrative. The Trump-Zelensky encounter is an example of how both sides lost control of the plot.

Some policy analysts feel that US outreach to Putin is to dilute the Russia-China bond, reminiscent of the 1971 Kissinger visit to China to divide the Communist bloc. But the parallel is misplaced. In 1971, cracks were visible in the China-Soviet relationship, and second, the US was not creating a divide within the Western bloc.

The substance of US diplomacy

Zelensky knew that he held the weaker hand. Had he kept it in mind in the Oval Office, he could have sidestepped the provocation. Trump and Vance revel in the in-your-face approach, both domestically and with other leaders. However, exposing a growing US-Europe divide on Ukraine and other issues only weakens the US hand by giving comfort to Putin and Xi Jinping.

Realism has always been an integral part of diplomacy. Political leaders, whether democrats or autocrats, instinctively know that idealism is not the strategy for survival. Writing in the fourth century B.C., Greek historian Thucydides described the powerful Athenian delegation bluntly informing the weaker Melians, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Closer home, Kautilya elaborated how diplomacy and persuasion can amplify the effectiveness of power in the Arthashastra.

US presidents have never been idealists. Even President Roosevelt, the key architect of the United Nations, was clear that the real power would be exercised by the Security Council and within that, by the Permanent Members who enjoy veto powers. At the same time, he also realised that the principle of equality of sovereign states had to be respected to get a buy-in by all countries and so the General Assembly became the premier annual gathering. And this when the US accounted for 50 percent of global GDP!

Nixon extricated the US from Vietnam but needed the fig leaf of the Paris Peace Accords negotiated in 1973. Just as Biden used the agreement Trump had concluded with the Taliban to engineer the US exit from Afghanistan. Both were guided by realism but needed the diplomatic cover. During the Cold War, successive US presidents supported military dictatorships in pursuit of realism but couched it as a defence of democracy and the free world. Yet, when faced with the Soviet crackdowns in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968, the value-based diplomacy quickly yielded to realist prudence. 

Therefore, Trumpian diplomacy is not a departure from US diplomatic practice in substance; its change is more in Trump’s style of diplomacy. He may desire to Make America Great Again but he presides over an America that no longer enjoys the primacy it enjoyed in 1945 or 1991. Though President Theodore Roosevelt’s advice “speak softly and carry a big stick” was given at the beginning of the 20th century before the age of TV and social media, it remains valid because as President Abraham Lincoln famously said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Trump would do well to heed the advice of his predecessors and not be seduced by his own voice on Truth Social.

*****

My Interview to India’s World on India’s ambitious goals for nuclear power

Posted on by
Reply

Published in India’s World on February 23, 2025

“Realising 100 GW of Nuclear Power by 2047 Depends on…” Former Diplomat Rakesh Sood

‘Realising 100 GW of Nuclear Power by 2047 Depends on Building the Right Framework’, says, former Indian Diplomat Rakesh Sood.

Hely Desai

February 23, 2025

India has indicated a significant shift in its nuclear energy strategy with the Union Budget 2025-26. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s announcement of the Nuclear Energy Mission outlines ambitious targets, modest financial allocations, and significantly, some amendments to the Atomic Energy Act (1962) and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (2010), aimed at accelerating private sector participation. With the country’s rapidly growing industrial sector and rising energy demands, the Finance Minister emphasised the urgent need to diversify India’s energy mix, positioning nuclear power as a crucial pillar in the low-carbon development strategy for realising the vision of a “Viksit Bharat” (Developed India) by 2047 and a “net zero” by 2070.

In this interview, Hely Desai sits down with Rakesh Sood, former Indian diplomat and Special Envoy of the Prime Minister for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, to decode the implications of these potentially transformative nuclear developments following the budget announcement.

Hely Desai: In the Union Budget 2025, nuclear energy received significant attention once again. The Finance Minister set an ambitious target of 100 gigawatts (GW) by 2047—nearly 12 times the current capacity. Given that this goal has been revised several times over the years, do you think it is now achievable? What key challenges have hindered progress so far?

Amb. Rakesh Sood: To put it in context, in the 1970s, India set a target of 10 GW to be achieved by 2000. We are at 8.2 GW today. Each time a new target has been set, it has become more ambitious and, understandably, more difficult to achieve. So, while the targets of 22 GW by 2031 and eventually 100 GW by 2047 are ambitious targets, their realisation will depend on how we prepare the framework to achieve it. 

The budget for the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) for 2025-26 is INR 24,049 crores. Last year, it was INR 24,450 crores, and the year before that, INR 25,882 crores. These are in the same ballpark range and do not reflect either the urgency or the priority to the sector. In the budget speech, the Finance Minister also mentioned an additional INR 20,000 crores for nuclear power, but with no clarity about the time frame for this allocation to materialise. If this amount is spread over the next five years, it would mean an additional INR 4,000 crores per year, which doesn’t significantly address the funding gap, given that the average cost of nuclear power per megawatt in India at $2 million is approx. Rs 17 crores! Therefore, this amount is unlikely to help meet the ambitious targets if the government is the only source of funding. This is why I believe the Finance Minister also mentioned the need to amend existing legislation.

The Atomic Energy Act (1962) places all nuclear energy activities, including materials and technology, under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). As a result, all nuclear facilities are under the DAE and all nuclear power reactors are operated by nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), a wholly government-owned Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) and a subsidiary of the DAE. To involve the private sector, existing legislation will need to be amended. However, the exact form this will take remains unclear. 

One indication is the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by NPCIL in December 2024, inviting private industries to build two 220 MWe PHWR Bharat Small Reactors. The RFP suggests that “the reactors are planned to be set up with private sector investment, operating within the existing legal framework and approved business models.” The intention is to replace captive power plants, which are currently coal-based, with the DAE-indigenised PHWR models. However, the investor/user/industrial party would construct the project under the supervision and control of the NPCIL, which would take over the plant as the operator. Capital costs, all operating expenses during the life cycle, and decommissioning expenses would be borne by the ‘user’ who can utilise the captive power and/or sell it according to tariffs approved by the government.

However, we still don’t know what the response to the RFP has been. The RFP was issued two months before the amendment announcement and emphasises that it is “within existing legal framework.” 

How is India’s energy profile expected to evolve as India pursues the twin goals of Viksit Bhat by 2047 and net-zero by 2070?

Currently, India’s annual per capita income is approximately $2500, and to reach Viksit Bharat (developed country standard according to World Bank), it has to grow to approximately $ 22,000. In 2022-23, India’s per capita annual energy consumption was 1208 kWh while China was 4600kWh, Singapore was 9220 kWh and the US is stable at 80000 kWh. National energy consumption is approx. 10000 TWH; taking into account rising energy efficiencies, it still needs to rise to 35000 TWH by 2047 to achieve Viksit Bharat. India has committed to the target of ‘net-zero’ by 2070. This imposes restrictions on sources for energy growth. In absolute numbers, with the energy composition changing with growing urbanisation, India’s power generation needs to grow from current installed capacity of approx. 450 GW (consisting of 200 GW from renewables covering solar, wind and hydroelectric, 8 GW from nuclear and the balance from fossil fuels) to 4000 GW. Solar, wind, hydel, and biomass can contribute to approximately 1300-1500 GW, leaving a large shortfall of 2500-2700 GW to be met from fossil fuels and nuclear power.   Given the net-zero goal, it is clear that nuclear power has to play a much larger role in India’s economic development. Against this backdrop, the Finance Minister’s target of 100 GW of nuclear generation by 2047 seems critical and may need to grow much more by 2070 to achieve net-zero. This would require significant investment in both nuclear power plants and renewable infrastructure, meaning the private sector must play a key role, as the government alone cannot shoulder this energy transition. 

Given the potential amendments that may also be in part aimed at advancing Small Modular Reactors (SMR) development, the announcement also sets a target of having five operational SMRs by 2033. Do you think financial and technological challenges could pose significant obstacles for India in achieving this goal?

Yes, absolutely. When discussing these amendments in the context of advancing SMRs, a key driving force is India’s commitment to meeting clean energy targets while ensuring scalability. SMRs are projected to be beneficial for supporting urbanisation, providing power in remote locations, and meeting dedicated industrial energy needs, thus driving sustainable growth across diverse regions. 

Now, small modular reactors, typically under 300 MW and modular in design, are projected to play a crucial role in this transition. However, to make this work, it is essential to reach a consensus on a specific SMR design. Only then can it be mass-produced, potentially reducing costs through economies of scale. 

Globally, around 80 different SMR designs (variants of Molten Salt Reactors, Pressurised Water Reactors, Molten Metal Reactors and High-Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors) are under development, with only two having reached operational stages. If we look at Russia, they have an operational floating nuclear power plant with an SMR based on the pressurised water reactor (PWR) design, and China has a land-based High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR). Apart from these two, no other country has reached the operationalisation stage for SMRs yet. 

For India, most of our existing nuclear power plants are limited to PHWR technology, which, while effective, is not the most efficient. Post 1974, after India’s Peaceful Nuclear Explosion, India was excluded from international exchanges and cooperation, and PHWR was the only option available at the time. Now, the government is looking to explore more secure and advanced technologies for the future. Collaboration and external expertise will be crucial. This was also one of the primary objectives behind the nuclear deal with the U.S., which aimed to foster international cooperation. This context underpins the Finance Minister’s announcement that India aims to have five operational SMRs by 2033. 

Assuming this announcement for amendments is intended to incentivise private sector involvement in nuclear energy, what significant changes do you anticipate in the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, and how might they affect private sector participation?

First, the Atomic Energy Act would need to create a role for the private sector. What this role is intended to be is unclear. Second is the Liability Act. According to the NPCIL RFP (issued a month before the Finance Minister’s budget speech), the private sector role is only that of the investor. If NPCIL is the operator and the project is built to NPCIL’s designs and specifications and under its supervision, then physical protection and nuclear safety will also become NPCIL’s responsibility. The private sector will insist on complete indemnity through a “hold harmless” clause. However, if the private sector entity’s role is to be greater, then it will need to be legally defined as also the sharing of the liability responsibility. In Western countries, private companies are allowed to build and operate nuclear power plants (though designs and operations are regulated by governments), and they are held liable according to their respective liability laws. 

The general principle is that, in the event of a nuclear accident, the first priority is to provide immediate relief and assistance to those affected. This is operator liability under the principle of “economic channelling” In India, under our liability law, this assistance is capped at INR 1,500 crores, and if damages exceed that, the government must intervene. This means the operator is required to have an insurance pool for immediate assistance. Under the CLNDA, even if the NPCIL holds a supplier responsible, it can pursue the claim through “legal channelling” but without delaying immediate relief.

Currently, NPCIL, an entirely government-owned agency, acts as the operator, and the government essentially serves as its insurer. After the CLNDA, the ambiguities created by unclear definitions made private players (both foreign and domestic) hesitant to enter the sector.  For the private sector to play any significant part in the development of nuclear power, some of these ambiguities in the CLNDA would need to be clarified. So far, the government has relied on Explanations provided through Frequently Asked Questions posted on government department websites, but this has failed to satisfy the private entities. 

Ahead of the budget announcement, there was a report in the Economic Times suggesting that civil nuclear energy could be moved from the DAE’s oversight to the Ministry of Power, with fuel handling remaining under the DAE. How likely do you think this shift is, and what challenges might arise from such a transfer?

For a shift like this, I think one of the first things needed is an independent regulator. Currently, we have the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). There was a draft bill proposed to make the AERB a statutory body but it didn’t see the light of day. Today, even though the AERB is autonomous in name, it remains part of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), meaning it lacks the independence of regulators like the RBI, SEBI, or TRAI that were established through specific acts of Parliament, granting them the necessary autonomy to regulate both government and private sector activities. For example, the RBI supervises even government-owned banks like the SBI, while the SEBI regulates stock exchanges such as the BSE and NSE.

In this context, the nuclear sector would benefit from a similar independent regulator, one that can oversee activities regardless of whether these are carried out by the government or private sector entities. This is a crucial step as we explore private sector participation in nuclear power generation. There would, of course, be mandatory safety and security guidelines. And even if the nuclear material remains under the DAE’s ownership, certain protocols would need to be in place to ensure the DAE can retain ownership without assuming liability in the event of an accident. Establishing these clear boundaries will present legal challenges if the private sector is to play a role in nuclear power generation.

Another important issue would be land acquisition for nuclear power plants (NPPs). Often, communities resist having NPPs near their towns or villages, fearing potential accidents. The question then becomes—who will handle resistance, outreach communication, and compensation? While the government can acquire land to some extent, it typically sets up an industrial zone and allocates it to private companies. But with public resistance, it raises the issue of who will acquire land for private companies looking to build NPPs. For private companies, acquiring land and establishing facilities would be even more challenging. 

Additionally, Indian private companies lack the necessary expertise in designing and operating nuclear power plants, as they have never been involved in this sector. So, will they form joint ventures with foreign technology entities like Westinghouse, GE, or Électricité de France? If so, how would these joint ventures be structured? Will the government insist NPCIL be involved as an operator, as with previous deals like the French reactors at Jaitapur? These are questions that remain to be answered as the situation develops.

To conclude, developing a strong, independent regulatory framework and managing land acquisition, safety protocols, and private sector involvement will be key to successful private sector participation in India’s nuclear power generation. These challenges, particularly around regulatory independence and the acquisition of land amidst public resistance, will require clear legal structures and government support to ensure the safe, efficient, and sustainable development of nuclear energy in the country. 

How these issues are addressed will likely shape the future of India’s nuclear energy sector as India pursues the twin goals of Viksit Bharat by 2047 and net-zero by 2070.

*****