Allocation of the crucial defence portfolio had been held in
abeyance for more than a couple of months until Narendra Modi selected a
suitable person to fill the slot. It would now appear that the “star” drafted
into the team enjoys special privileges — such as being immune to the concept
of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, or at least being entitled to
the luxury of airing personal opinions on policy matters.

That the ministry of defence was quick to issue a
clarification even though Manohar Parrikar had stressed that his views on “no
first use” of nuclear weaponry were entirely personal, and that there had been
no change in official policy, points to mature thinking attempting to avert a
controversy from snowballing. For the minister’s objection to the “no first
use” doctrine flies in the face of the assurance that Atal Behari Vajpayee had
given the international community after the “nuclear option” had been exercised
at Pokhran.

That commitment had been re-emphasised in the manifesto upon
which Modi & Co. had (at least theoretically) secured the electoral success
of 2014. The party had merely promised to “study in detail India’s nuclear
doctrine, and revise and update it, to make it relevant to challenges of
current times” but has made no formal policy-modification. There is sanctity to
policy pronouncements, no individual can publicly differ with them and retain a
ministerial position.

Any failure to “discipline” the defence minister could have
its consequences: both internationally on an issue of as much global importance
as nuclear weaponry, or domestically it would point to the writ of the Prime
Minister not running in his government. Even if the defence minister has
special privileges he can prove a source of embarrassment. The “personal
opinion” alibi does not hold, particularly in as responsible a portfolio as the
one allotted to Mr Parrikar.

Advocates of the defence minister would like to point to
there being only marginal differences in what Parrikar said and the official
policy formulation; the issue is not one of semantic hair-splitting. His
contention that the ”surgical strikes” had silenced Pakistani threats of a
nuclear confrontation betrays tunnel vision. India is, or at least claimed to
be, a country of international stature that was not constricted by a
Pakistan-centric policy but Parrikar has raised queries on that score.

It might make political sense for the Prime Minister to
ignore the criticism that Parrikar’s “personal opinion” provoked from the
Congress and the CPI-M, but there can be no questioning the validity of the
proposition that a minister speaks on behalf of the government. Established
norms of government functioning cannot be turned on their head because a  mantriji seeks a media-splash.