Home Contact Us
Search :
   

Nuclear - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#2098, 23 August 2006
 
India at Crossroads: Next Steps in the Nuclear Deal
Alex Stolar
Research Intern
e-mail: alex@ipcs.org
 


India is at a crossroads. The world's largest democracy faces critical decisions about its future role in the world. Is India ready to play in the big leagues of international politics? Is India willing to extricate itself from nuclear limbo? Perhaps most of all, is India willing to accept the costs entailed in becoming a player on the global stage? The next few weeks will be quite revealing.

The 18 July 2005 Joint Statement issued by President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was revolutionary in its scope. Reversing 30 years of American non-proliferation policy, President Bush presented India with an opportunity: if India takes certain minimal steps, it could reap rich rewards-a ticket to the international big leagues, great power status, acceptance as a de facto nuclear power, and badly needed civilian nuclear assistance.

The steps India needs to take are simple. Briefly, it must fulfill three conditions. First, separate its civilian from its military nuclear facilities in a credible and defensible way. Second, enter into an IAEA safeguards agreement in perpetuity and an IAEA Additional Protocol. Third, never test nuclear weapons again.

These are easy conditions for India to meet, since the nuclear deal enhances, rather than detracts, from India's capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons. But, on 16 August 2006, several former heads of India's nuclear industry released a statement suggesting that these basic conditions make the nuclear deal "unacceptable" for India.

In vague language, they have objected to the deal on four grounds. First, they denounce any restraints on India's freedom of action-diplomatic code for India's freedom to test nuclear weapons. Second, they suggest that IAEA safeguards should only be applied to facilities which receive nuclear assistance from abroad. The third and fourth objections are interrelated, with their deploring any external supervision of India's nuclear program (read: the US Congress's reporting requirements about India's strategic program, and the IAEA Additional Protocol.)

These objections raise fundamental questions, which India's political leaders must answer. Put simply, if India is unwilling to forswear additional tests of its nuclear weapons is it a responsible state, deserving of US nuclear cooperation? Likewise, India's nuclear record is far from perfect; hence IAEA safeguards have to be applied broadly. India's history of using a civilian nuclear facility for the 1974 Pokharan test places a question mark over whether India can be trusted with such assistance. The only way this trust can be guaranteed is for the US and the international community to insist on broad and robust IAEA safeguards.

The final two objections raised in the statement go back to the most fundamental point: Is India a responsible nuclear state? Responsible nuclear states do not indulge in an arms race. In fact, the US and the USSR were wholly irresponsible during their insane and unnecessary arms race during the Cold War. One must wonder that, if India is committed to using nuclear assistance only for civilian purposes, then why should external supervision matter for India? If India is wary of external supervision, then one must ask, does India have something to hide?

The facts are simple. India has been given a once in a lifetime opportunity. While problems on the margins can be adjusted, will India ever get a better deal? The conditions placed by the international community and the US are not onerous. Will India accept the costs associated with receiving this unprecedented chance?

At the same time, the question seems more consequential than whether India will meet the conditions envisaged for the nuclear deal to move forward. The opposition to the nuclear deal in India is also about India's new place in the world. Will India be a force for progress? Or will India sit on the sidelines as the great games of the 21st century are played?

In the 18 July Joint Statement, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasized twice that India would play a "leading role" in WMD non-proliferation efforts-not a "supporting" role, or a "facilitating" role, but a "leading" role. However, Indian strategists have been wary of the IAEA, dismissive of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, resistant in supporting the Proliferation Security Initiative, and reticent on curbing Iran's nuclear program. India seems to want all the benefits of becoming a great power without any of its responsibilities.

Two truths are clear: India will have a difficult time in becoming a great power if it is unwilling to accept the burden of responsibility that comes with being a leading nation on the international stage. And, if India does become a global power, reaping the benefits, while eschewing international leadership and stewardship, the world will be more dangerous for all its citizens.

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary

D Suba Chandran
Across the Durand Line: Who is in Control Now? Will That Change?
Taliban Talks and the Four Horsemen: Between Peace and Apocalypse
Pakistan: Talks about Talks with the Taliban, Again
Dateline Islamabad

Salma Malik
Pakistan and TTP: Dialogue or Military Action?
The Musharraf Trial & Beyond

Dateline Kabul

Mariam Safi
Afghanistan, US and the Peace Process: A Deal with the Taliban in 2014?
Dhaka Discourse

Prof Delwar Hossain
Bangladesh: Domestic Politics and External Actors
Bangladesh Post Elections 2014: Redefining Domestic Politics?

Eagle Eye

Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
US in Asia: A 'Non-Alignment' Strategy?
Indo-US Strategic Partnership Post Khobragade: The Long Shadow
East Asia Compass

Dr Sandip Mishra
North Korean Peace Gestures and Inter-Korea Relations
Japan: Implications of Indiscriminate Assertiveness
China, Japan, Korea and the US: Region at Crossroads

Himalayan Frontier

Pramod Jaiswal
Chinese Inroads to Nepal
Constituent Assembly-II: Rifts Emerging
Nepal: The Crisis over Proportional Representation and the RPP Divide
Maritime Matters

Vijay Sakhuja
Increasing Maritime Competition: IORA, IONS, Milan and the Indian Ocean Networks
China in the Indian Ocean: Deep Sea Forays
Iran Navy: Developing Long Sea Legs

Middle Kingdom

DS Rajan
China in the Indian Ocean: Competing Priorities
China-Japan Friction: How can India Respond?
Nuke Street

Amb Sheelkant Sharma
Nuclear Security Summit 2014 and the NTI Index
Nuclear Power: An Annual Report Card

Red Affairs

Bibhu Prasad
Maoists in the Northeast: Reality and Myth-Making
Surrender of Gudsa Usendi: Ominous beginning for the Naxals?
South Asian Dialectic

PR Chari
Federalism: Centre as Coordinator and Adjudicator
Limits of Federalism

Spotlight West Asia

Amb Ranjit Gupta
Saudi Arabia-US Estrangement: Implications for the Indian Subcontinent
Syria Today: Is Regime Change the Answer?
The Arab World: Trying Times Ahead
Strategic Space

Manpreet Sethi
US, China and the South Asian Nuclear Construct
Responding to Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: A Strategy for India

The Strategist

Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Strategic Non-Nuclear Weapons: An Essential Consort to a Doctrine of No First Use
 

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee


 

Browse by Publications

Commentaries 
Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 
China 
Myanmar 
Afghanistan 
Iran 
Pakistan 
India 
J&K  

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Indo-Pak 
Military 
Terrorism 
Naxalite Violence 
Nuclear 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Is Afghanistan the Next Afghanistan?

"No" Is Not Leadership: India and Non-Proliferation

Facing the Facts on the Nuclear Deal: A Rebuttal

Indo-US Nuclear Deal: The American Policy Process

Non-Proliferation Ayatollahs or Thoughtful Scholars: Understanding the American Non-Proliferation Lobby

ADD TO:
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
Facebook
 
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2014
 January  February  March  April
 2013  2012  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007  2006
 2005  2004  2003  2002  2001  2000  1999  1998
 1997
 
 

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

 
Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map | IPCS Email
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
Email:
© Copyright 2014, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
        Web Design by http://www.indiainternets.com