Bihari Vajpayee went along with Morarji Desai on a passive nuclear stand in 1979 but conducted the Pokharan II test in 1998. Narasimha Rao prepared for the test in December 1995 and at the last minute stepped back. Therefore, whether Pokharan III will be conducted or not will depend upon the man/woman in charge. It is a highly subjective decision.

However, Pokharan II was conducted in an international situation more favourable than Pokharan I. At present through the 123 Agreement we are trying to eliminate the adverse consequences of Pokharan I. The adverse consequences of Pokharan II were not as long-lasting as Pokharan I. Within five years after the test, India was able to engage the US on the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership. The 123 Agreement has cleared the ground for conducting Pokharan III if it becomes necessary. Those who are opposing the 123 Agreement want to condemn us perpetually to the technology apartheid imposed on a weak India after Pokharan I.

It is understandable that the Left which wanted India to continue to be non-nuclear, perpetually subject to the Sino-Pakistan nuclear threat and dominance, should oppose India getting international recognition of its right to test in case its security requirement needs it or another power carries out a test. It is incomprehensible why those who carried out Pokharan II test should oppose an agreement which specifically recognises the Indian right to test. Is there an explanation other than partisan politics?

The writer is a senior defence analyst