Examine the evolution of India’s role in global nuclear order.

(20 marks)

Approach:

Introduction - Briefly trace the role of India from testing till present.

Main body - Explore India’s stand on various treaties, bilateral nuclear trade and
nuclear disarmament.

Conclusion -India as a responsible nuclear state and its stand on disarmament.

“Employment of the atom bomb for the wholesale destruction of men, women and children is
the most diabolical use of science.” -Mahatma Gandhi

India has been consistent in its support for the global elimination of all weapons of mass
destruction. However, India's role in the global nuclear order has evolved significantly over
the past few decades. In the early years of its nuclear program, India's status as a non-
signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) caused friction with the international community, leading to economic
sanctions and isolation. However, since the early 2000s, India's position in the global nuclear
order has undergone a significant shift.

Evolution of India’s role in global nuclear order:

Former PM Jawaharlal Nehru called for a treaty banning all nuclear test explosions as early
as 1954. However, India opposed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the following
grounds:
 It only checks horizontal proliferation and allows vertical proliferation.
 It has no roadmap for global disarmament.
 The cut-off date of 01-01-1967 monopolises nuclear power to the P5 countries
dividing the world into nuclear HAVEs and HAVE-NOTs. It is a discriminatory
treaty.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 1

  This enables NWS to acquire structural power (Susan Strange) and dominate
others.

Similarly, India opposes CTBT on the following grounds:

 It does not ban computer simulation testing for development of nuclear weapons.
 CTBT, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is also discriminatory. India
has said it would join the treaty only if there was no discrimination in favour of the
five nuclear weapon states in fulfilling the obligations for complete elimination of
nuclear weapons
 The clause of gradual disarmament is vague.

India suffered nuclear apartheid: There was a massive global retaliation against India after
India tested nuclear devices in 1998. USA had imposed sanctions on India. Moreover, India
was always denied access to nuclear technology because it had not signet NPT.

India is not a nuclear pariah state anymore:

However, over the years India has emerged out of nuclear isolation and has been accepted as
a responsible nuclear power. Biggest turning point in India’s nuclear history has been the
India – US nuclear deal
 Indo-US civil nuclear deal signed in 2008, granted India access to civilian nuclear
technology and fuel from the international market despite not being a party to the
NPT. India even does Nuclear trade with Japan, which has made an India specific
waiver.

 NSG Waiver: A major aspect of the Indo-US nuclear deal was the exemption from
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) transfer restrictions that enabled it to sign
cooperation agreements with multiple NSG members.

 IAEA Safeguards agreement: It enabled India to separate its civilian and military
programmes and placed its civilian nuclear facilities under the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 2

  India has gained membership of the Australian Group, Wassenaar Arrangement
and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This can reduce the relevance of
NPT, which India has always opposed and has increased her global stature.

 India has also sought to be a responsible nuclear power, emphasising its commitment
to no-first-use of nuclear weapons and maintaining "credible minimum
deterrence." According to K. Subrahmanyam, deterrence is more about perception
than numbers, and as long as the other side perceives a survivable nuclear capability,
deterrence will hold.

India’s Roadmap for Global Disarmament: India has always supported the cause of
nuclear disarmament and believes that its security would be strengthened in a nuclear weapon
free and non-violent world order

 Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan: In 1988, India had presented to the UN General assembly
"An action plan for a world free of nuclear weapons".
 India has been committed to the goal of universal, non-discriminatory and
verifiable nuclear disarmament. India has been supporting complete elimination of
nuclear weapons through a step by step process.
 India has also supported the immediate commencement of negotiations in conference
on disarmament (CD) on Fissile Material cut off Treaty (FMCT).
 India has also supported the need for a legally binding instrument on Prevention of
an arms race in outer space (PAROS) to address pressing issues relating to space
security.

India has been a vociferous critic of the realist doctrine of Nuclear Deterrence. Rajiv
Gandhi had called it the “ultimate expression of the philosophy of terrorism, holding
humanity hostage to the presumed security needs of a few”. Thus, India remains the only
nuclear state that remains committed to the idea of a verifiable, non- discriminatory and
universal nuclear disarmament.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 3

Is ‘terrorism’ an essentially ‘contested’ concept? What are the different manifestations
of ‘terrorism’ as a concept, and as a practice? (15 marks)

Approach

1. Introduction - Briefly explain the concept of terrorism and how it remains an issue
on which international consensus remains challenging.
2. Body - (a) Describe the historical manifestation of terrorism and its traits in brief.
(b) Discuss how the practise of terrorism is contested, both in terms of actors and
how to deal with it.
3. Conclusion - Kofi Annan’s view.

Terrorism refers to the act of using violence to further political objectives by creating an
atmosphere of fear, terror and uncertainty. Acts of terror are very different from conventional
crimes as they are often backed by robust propaganda and result in highly publicized
atrocities. However it is a highly contested concept as UN members have failed to agree on a
common definition of terror acts and despite India’s proposal it has failed to adopt a
Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.

Differing manifestation of terrorism as a concept: Terrorism is often associated with the

non – western world. However, Terrorism is not a modern phenomenon. It is also not
essentially non – western. In fact, it is misleadingly associated only with the non – western
world. Following is the evolution of the term:
 In modern history, it traces its roots to the "Reign of Terror" under Jacobians era of
the French revolution, which was characterised by the use of "guillotine".
 In the 19th & 20th century, terrorism manifested in the forms of anarchist,
communist and liberation movements. E.g. Assassination of US President Abraham
Lincoln, Irish rebels of UK, Basques of Spain, LTTE of Sri Lanka.
 90s onwards: A major transition began during the 90s. Biggest turning point was
9/11 terror attacks of 2001. Before 2001 existed traditional terrorism, however,

VAJIRAM & RAVI 4

 after 2001 evolved a new, modern and global form of terrorism. For instance Al
Qaeda and ISIS. It is characterised by the following:

 It is mostly guided by religious fundamentalism.

 It is leaderless and is not based on institutions.
 It aims to establish a new social order and does not succumb to political
bargain. Therefore, it lacks strategic culture and has become more inflexible
and uncompromising
 Transnational character: It has acquired global character. It has global
presence and implications. In fact it is assisted by globalization.
 New terrorism is more destructive and difficult to manage. It has become a
core issue in world politics and a principal security threat.
 It is also described as catastrophic terrorism because new innovative ways
are used to kill more people. For instance hijacking, suicide bombing, lone
wolf terror attacks, cyber terrorism. Moreover, secular motivations have been
replaced by religious motivations.
 Moreover, there is a possibility that terrorist groups may become more lethal
by acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) or nuclear weapons
(nuclear terrorism).

According to John Lewis Gaddis, end of cold war has led to diffusion of threats that
manifests in the form of terrorism. According to Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of
Civilisations thesis, future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures.

Differing manifestations of terrorism as a practise: Scholars has proposed different

theoretical perspectives to explain modern practice of terrorism in international politics and
how to counter the same.

Critical theorists are against essentialising terrorism to a particular religion or culture.

According to Noam Chomsky, terrorism is nothing but killing of unarmed civilians by either
non-state actors or state actors. He describes State terrorism as whole sale terrorism and
non-state actors as retail terrorism. He calls USA as the leading Terror State of the world.
He further argues that state actors have started using terrorism as a foreign policy tool.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 5

Similarly, according to Walter Lacqueur, terrorism is of two types (a) Terrorism from above
by state actors (b) terrorism from below by non-state actors.

Moreover, both realists and liberals consider terrorists as non-state actors. However, they
differ in their prescription to deal with them:
 Realists cite the "Problem of dirty hands” of Niccolo Machiavelli and suggest use
of brutal hard force to deal with the threat of terrorism. There should be no moral
dilemma while countering terrorism.
 According to Liberals Terrorism is a threat against liberal society: openness, freedom,
human rights. However, liberals suffer from ethical dilemma with regard to counter
terrorism strategies: What should be the strategy? Liberal principles should be
followed or not? Many liberals have prescribed “War of Position” and “War of
Manoeuvre” against terrorism. They prescribe a “Heart and mind” approach to
address its root cause.

Contrary to realist prescription it is often argued that, use of excessive force and violation of
human rights can be counterproductive. If state gets into vicious cycle of repression, then it
will lose its soft power, credibility and its image will be harmed (lose moral high
ground). Liberal state would slip into authoritarianism. This would help terrorists get
much needed legitimacy and sympathy.

According to Kofi Annan, we must protect human rights while dealing with terrorism. He
suggests the following 5Ds strategy to deal with it:
 Dissuade disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic to achieve their goals
 Deny terrorists the means to carry out their attacks
 Deter States from supporting terrorists
 Develop State capacity to prevent terrorism
 Defend human rights in the struggle against terrorism.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 6