Circumstances have created an opportunity for India to play a historic role for furthering world peace. America is in the throes of a Presidential election. The situation in the Middle East is a major election issue. The standoff between the US and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear policy is at the heart of the current tension in the Middle East. The White House has announced its readiness to hold direct talks with President Ahmadinejad to resolve the issue. But there are no immediate prospects of such talks being held. Mr. Ahmadinejad refuses to oblige.

Meanwhile US Deputy Secretary of the State Department Mr. William Burns is visiting Delhi. It is a sign of US desperation perhaps that for the first time Washington is openly requesting New Delhi to intervene with Tehran and persuade President Ahmadinejad to resume talks on the nuclear issue. If the UPA government were not in such disarray it could initiate the start of a policy that could realize the goal of late Rajiv Gandhi and change world politics.

Mr. Burns told the Indian media:

“We feel a great sense of urgency. There is a great deal at stake here, given Iran’s failure thus far to comply with its international obligations – the danger of increased tension, nuclear arms race in a region that already has more than its share of instability and which plays an important role in the global economy.”

Mr. Burns has a valid point. Indeed the current situation is volatile. But the answer is not to help create a cosmetic dialogue between the US and Iran to further the electoral prospects of one candidate or the other. New Delhi should cut the Gordian knot of the world’s nuclear crisis and utilize this opportunity to take the first step towards total nuclear disarmament as was advocated in the UN by Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Atal Behari Vajpayee. How might that be done? How can Mr. Ahmadinejad be persuaded to resume a nuclear dialogue with the West? There is only one credible and just way of doing that.

Unlike India and Israel, Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under provisions of that treaty Iran must subject itself to international inspection of its nuclear installations. Iran is resisting that. The West and Israel are accusing Iran of building nuclear weapons. Iran is denying that and claiming to develop only nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has gone on record to state: "Iran regards utilizing nuclear weapons as forbidden in Islam and it is incumbent on everyone to safeguard humanity from such weapons." Nevertheless Israel and the West do not trust President Ahmadinejad.

It is in this fractious situation that the US is seeking India’s intervention for ending the impasse. How should New Delhi respond?

First of all our government must separate the moral from the legal issue. India refused to sign the NPT because it was unjust and unequal. Iran made the mistake of signing it. That does not alter the fact that the world is being subjected to an arbitrary and unjust nuclear arrangement imposed through brute force. What gives the world’s permanent five nuclear powers the right to decide that the rest of the world cannot acquire what they themselves are not prepared to relinquish? The immorality and hypocrisy of these big five powers are fully exposed by their refusal to recognize and act against the nuclear proliferation indulged in by one of their own members, China. Perhaps the prospect of continued Chinese investment is too alluring for the corrupted West. Therefore what New Delhi must do is to restore legality demanded by the provisions of the NPT without sacrificing the morality violated by the present nuclear order. New Delhi at one stroke should attempt to propitiate Tehran and at the same time advance India’s official policy to promote total nuclear disarmament first voiced in the UN by Rajiv Gandhi. How might that be done? It can be attempted if the government takes up my proposal to establish the Asian Nuclear Disarmament Association suggested in these columns on July 18, 2011.

I wrote:

“First, India and Pakistan should bring all nuclear weapons in both nations under control of a common apex body representing India, Pakistan and Iran empowered to use the weapons in case of extreme crisis. This should be the Asian Nuclear Disarmament Association (ANDA). If Pakistan rejects efforts to eliminate the nuclear threat, continuing the peace dialogue with it should be abandoned. In that event Pakistan would be inviting self destruction. With Iran as part of the apex body Tehran would have no excuse to hanker after nuclear weapons. Resolving Iran’s nuclear dispute would facilitate Middle East peace. A representative of IAEA should also be part of the apex body with the world body having full access to monitor all nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan.

“Secondly, if Pakistan and Iran are agreeable to the proposal the apex body should formulate a time bound phased plan for total nuclear disarmament and present it to the United Nations. ANDA would retain the weapons and the right to use them for Asian security until all nuclear powers surrender their weapons to the UN. The world body would determine how many nuclear weapons to destroy and how many to retain. The UN would keep the retained weapons under its direct control. Meanwhile ANDA could mobilize public opinion across the world in favour of total nuclear disarmament.

“Thirdly, if ANDA is formed it should invite all the Asian nuclear and threshold nuclear powers in the continent to join the organization and become members of the apex body. China, Israel, North Korea and Japan should be invited. The nations that refuse to join would be free to seek isolation and censure by global public opinion.”

If New Delhi were to make this offer to Tehran might not President Ahmadijnejad fully cooperate? If the proposal to create ANDA sounds too fanciful I would draw attention to only two facts. First, it may be just a matter of time before nuclear weapons fall in the hands of terrorists. Secondly, in the prevailing political context India would be the likeliest target of a nuclear terrorist attack if it were engineered. Critics are advised to reflect. In the prevailing situation does the ANDA proposal suggest sensible precaution or reckless fantasy?

Related Article:  Defusing World's Deadliest Danger