World knew Indian nuclear capability since its test explosion in 1974, though Mrs. Indira Gandhi assured that India would not fabricate nuclear weapons. Missile tests were attributed to its space programme. It was known between 1974 and 1998 that India was developing missiles unrelated to satellites or space programme. They could only be militarily-oriented. Pakistanis believed India was continuing to fabricate nuclear weapons. From the hindsight, it seems India was fabricating nuclear weapons perhaps in a leisurely fashion.

Question of India's motivation crops up insistently. India was one of the leaders of Non-aligned Movement. Its moral stock was high because of its earlier decision to abjure nuclear weapons. Which is why world was astonished at its PNE in 1974. If India did not intend becoming a nuclear power, why did it test explode a bomb it had fabricated? Fact is that the Indians had stabbed the anti-nuclear movement in the back. The 1974 was not an isolated event. Nehru himself had asked for American military aid and its nuclear umbrella in 1962. Wind direction was clear: acquisition of a nuclear umbrella.

There is consensus in Indian political life that the aim is to make India a great power. Assumption is that military strength makes a power great. That confers status. Earlier great powers would acquire colonies by conquest. While Indians are acquiring every element of military strength, it is unclear what is intended by its ability to project power. Some say status or grandeur is the aim. Nuclear weapons are seen as the currency of power. It supposedly attracts respect and awe from others.

But what is the actual result? Pakistan's knee-jerk reaction was to test-fire six nuclear weapons within days. With that India sank to equality with Pakistan. An essential hyphenation with Pakistan took place to Indians' chagrin. The world saw both linked with each other also through these hostile nuclear weapons aimed against each other. Since Pakistan made no bones about its motivation, willy nilly the Indian nukes have to counter Pakistan's. No matter how much India protests that its nukes are not Pakistan-centric, the world sees no other use of Indian nukes. Although India hates to be equated with Pakistan, the May 11 decision led to its own down gradation to Pakistan's level.

Can nukes really help attain a world power status for India, necessarily at the cost of vacating high moral ground? Indians have to figure that out. An outsider is only aware of nuclear weapons being feared and hated. They are 60 years old. All people of goodwill condemn nuclear weapons whether held by Big Five or Israel or India or Pakistan. No one respects India and Pakistan because of their nuclear weapons. On the contrary these lead to a loss of others' goodwill.

India's political establishment has set its heart on being recognised as a great and region's preeminent power while America wants it to be world's major power. India wants to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with the veto. The question is: would the possession of a sophisticated Indian Nuclear Triad -- that is constantly being updated and expanded -- help India achieve this aim? An outsider's judgement is, not too many powers would want to deny India a seat in an expanded UN Security Council. But few would like it to get a veto. For one, veto has been used in a manner that has left everyone unhappy. It is anti-democratic; it violates sense of fairplay among states. In international law, it is a violation of its natural principles.

In short, neither India nor Pakistan can expect any rise in their status simply because they are nuclear powers.

Indians do not much talk about national security being strengthened by having nukes. But in the decision to become a nuclear power, it is certain that the security wallahs must have weighed in with the argument that nuclear weapons will make national security impregnable. That leads to a simple question: Was India more secure on May 14, 1998 (after the explosions) or it was on May 9, 1998? What precise difference these MDWs have made to India's national security? Plain answer is that it has been a negative development for India's national security. Why? because Pakistan has developed a nuclear deterrent that is aimed at India. Now, these MDWs are weapons of offence; they are useless for defence. India's impressive nuclear triad cannot defend India against a sneak nuclear attack by Pakistan and vice versa. Nuclear weapons have reduced the national security of both India and Pakistan.

It could be that the PNE in 1974 or the five explosions by Vajpayee government later, may have been political ploys. They did give a political resonance, favourable to the government. But factually they helped chauvinism and jingoism grow. This is an easy road to popularity. In both countries the tests were claimed to be a great achievement. Whatever the intent, the two sets of nukes have enhanced chauvinism and jingoism -- the true legacy of these weapons.

India, all said and done, is still a developing country with the largest pool of poverty. It has miles to go before it can ensure a decent living for all its people. These weapons are horribly costly. One is aware that their promoters (local industrial-military complexes) sold it as the cheapest way to greatness and absolute security. They are nothing of the kind. In the regional context, it was a dishonest sales pitch by hardliners of both India and Pakistan, who had been in frequent contact and had jointly popularised nuclear weapons as the cheapest means to security and peace. All told, expenditures on these weapon systems should include the cost of a subsequent accelerated arms race between India and Pakistan that each has to incur. India, richer than Pakistan, is scarcely rich enough country that can waste a lot of money on nuclear weapons and on the secondary arms race too.

Nuclear weapons require command and control systems, costs $ 3 billion and God knows how much more for keeping it updated and in maintaining it operational. Anyway, an arms race is built into nukes because all weapons have to be kept updated all the time. Each side has to keep ahead of the adversary, who is doing the same. An unstoppable vertical proliferation results when two adversaries are at it. The amount of money devoted to the nuclear triad has serious opportunity costs. Moreover, once the two nuclear powers have achieved rough equivalence in nuclear weapons, such as India and Pakistan have, they had to start a new arms race because the nuclear weapons notionally cancel each other out, as noted. All of it is unaffordable. Costs include the loss of goodwill and high esteem that the people of former nonaligned countries had for India.

Finally, Indians should consider what these nukes are doing to Indian economy and society. Are they not aggravating inequality and poverty? Let's consider just this one: If India had not undertaken any expenditure on nuclear weapons and even if it was spending all that it is spending on conventional weapons, the money available to invest for reinforcing the rate of growth would be greater, with more available for health, education and scientific research.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.