Why is India so reluctant to sign NPT and CTBT?
Non Proliferation Treaty in its current form is not fair to India. The treaty essentially states that only 5 wng powers of World War II have the right to have nuclear weapons. There is no way for India to sign a treaty considered as suicide. India's traditional position has always been either those five too denuclearize or everyone has the same rights to have nuclear weapons.
India shares 7500 km of borders with Pakistan and . Both nations have nuclear weapons and have fought wars with India. It is silly to ignore India's security threats and persist with the fiction that India will someday give up its nuclear weapons.
With nuclear weapons in hand, India doesn't worry about other countries as much any more and is able to confidently deal with both the first world (US-Europe) as well as second world (-Russia). This confidence and security has led to better economic policies, greater trade links and further prosperity.
India would not give all this peace and prosperity up for some relic of post-WW2 that wants to permanently freeze the strong positions of the five allies wng that war. Also, India has a stellar record of not allowing nuclear weapons to proliferate.
One just hopes that eventually west will allow India, Pakistan and Israel as recognized nuclear powers into the fold. There is not point in kee up with the current farce of having only 5 recognized nuclear powers. Since these three counties have never signed the treaty before going nuclear, there is less risk of compromising the basic tenets of NPT.
译文来源：三泰虎 http://www.santaihu.com/47217.html 译者：Joyceliu
Sangeeth Madhur, works at Tata Consultancy Services
The reasons for India not signing the Non-proliferation Treaty are realistic. To better understand why India did not sign the NPT , what actually is there in NPT can shed the light and this automatically explains India not signing NPT.
- According to NPT , only the Horizontal Proliferation is prohibited and not the vertical proliferation i.e. no new country except the p-5 (US, UK, Russia, and France) can proliferate the nuclear weapons. And the most tricky part is that there is no limitation or clause to limit further proliferation by the p-5 nations. This means that p-5 can acquire as many weapons as they can but other nations shouldn't dare to procure any . This is a clear discrimination and a move to permanently geo-politicize nuclear weapons.
- The NPT calls for nuclear disarmament but There is not time bound plan of action for a complete nuclear disarmament. Which means that in no near time frame the wish of nuclear weapon free world is going to be realized. More over the NPT has been extended indefinitely in 1995 which means neither the p-5 nations nor the signatories are realising the goal.
- The membership from NPT can be withdrawn by any nation with a 3-month prior notice period. ==> A nation can avail all the benefits of the NPT like nuclear commerce , become itself self-sufficient in technology and withdraw from the NPT and continue with its nuclear programme. This is what exactly happened with North Korea in 2003. For a country like India which is committed to Complete Global Nuclear Disarmament this may be unpalatable and the very loophole of NPT .
- According to NPT all the civilian nuclear establishments have to be brought under the surveillance of "International Atomic Energy Agency
" (IAEA). But the IAEA has been questioned of its relevance after Iran has been caught in 2002 with its highly enriched uranium heavy water reactor at Arak.
Apart from the above reasons despite of NPT , and having the responsibility of protecting other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons , Some of the p-5 countries especially USA and have been soft towards certain states like Pakistan and even are accused of hel them procure the weapons. This is nothing but the fence feeding on the crop.
The above reasons beyond doubt explains the India's refusal to sign NPT.
Vikram Yashashvi, Patriotic and nationalistic.
As far as CTBT is concerned, every PM of India starting from Nehru has done a lot of hard work , and even then PTBT (Partial Test Ban Treaty) was only complied with. India during Vajpayee government offered a moratorium on underground testing, thus ever since de facto India has been a CTBT nation, in concurrence with Indian stand on testing from decades. Vajpayee government India remained flexble on CTBT and willing to make ‘de jure’ its self imposed ban on testing, but as Brijesh Mishra said that time that India’s support to CTBT cannot be in a vacuum and depends on several reciprocal actions, particularly by Nuclear Weapon States. Thus India as a responsible state has always been on the fore front of Nuclear Test ban, and still remains so.
As far as NPT concerned, NSG as a matter of policy (Not Law) decided to prohibit all nuclear commerce with nations, that have not agreed for full scope safeguards, this precondition effectively required countries to join as NON WEAPON States.
I think fellow Quorans can see the absurdity of this precondition, especially since India is flanked on both sides of its borders by Nuclear weapon states.
So India is not reluctant to sign CTBT, in fact it is observing CTBT, and will sign when NWS also fulfil similar clauses.
Also India is not reluctant to sign NPT, it is determined not to sign it till the mentioned policy is treated as a law and precondition and I believe no Indian would ask our government to sign the NPT!
Nikhil John, Learning about India
India has not signed the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), 1970 because:
- India thinks NPT is discriminatory: There are two types of members in the NPT - Nuclear Weapons State and Non-Nuclear Weapons State. Only five countries (including ) who had fired a nuclear device before 1970 were given the status of Nuclear Weapons State. Any other nation who wished to sign the NPT, had to do so as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State. India exploded its first nuclear device in 1974 - this implies that the only option by which India could sign the NPT is being a Non-Nuclear Weapons State.
- India needs a minimum nuclear deterrant: If India signs the NPT as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State, India cannot even keep a minimal nuclear deterrant. In the light of the wars waged with neighbours and Pakistan, this option seems suicidal, given and Pakistan themselves have nuclear weapons. Therefore even popular political support, across the political spectrum, has been towards nuclear weapons program, rather than signing the NPT.
- 印度认为《不扩散核武器条约》是歧视性的：《不扩散核武器条约》有两类成员国- -核武器国家和无核武器国家。1970年以前，只有5个国家(包括)拥有核武器。任何其他希望签署《不扩散核武器条约》的国家都必须作为一个无核武器国家这样做。印度在1974年引爆了第一枚核装置，这意味着印度签署《不扩散核武器条约》的唯一选择是成为无核武器国家。
William Petroff, Web Developer
What's the point?
If it did, India would either have to get rid of its nuclear weapons or else run the serious risk of facing crippling sanctions. They're not about to give up their nuclear weapons (it would put them at a serious disadvantage with Pakistan and ) and, since they aren't paying much of a price for not being a member of the treaty because they are widely given access to nuclear technology, there's very little that incentivises them to join the treaty. If they were to sign the treaty, though, it would not be inconceivable that they'd face some sort of sanctions because they'd be flagrantly violating a treaty that most countries like to invoke.
 One of the biggest incentives to get countries to sign the NPT was the agreement that the nuclear countries would share "peaceful nuclear technology" with the non-nuclear countries so that they could domestically have the capability to produce nuclear power and use nuclear material for other peaceful purposes. Over the years, that restriction kind of faded away as power politics and raw economic considerations have taken on a bigger role in how the transfer of technology happens
Deep Shah, Hardcore Indian
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a mere farce in my opinion. It is an 'ancient' and unjust contract not reflecting the present geopolitical structure. Drafted in 1968, it only gives the P-5 (Permanent 5: USA, UK, Russia, and France) to hold nuclear weapons. Although it calls for nuclear disarmament, no fixed targets had been mentioned. has (allegedly) violated the treaty by proliferating knowledge to Pakistan.
Although it permits all nations to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the remaining countries are at a great risk. Their security is threatened until these five completely dismantle their nuclear arsenal. Indian Foreign Policy has therefore been against the NPT. India, Pakistan and Israel are the only non-signatories. North Korea pulled out so that it may beef up its security. So today, only 8 countries possess nuclear arsenal (P5, Indo-Pak, Israel). Iran and North Korea are suspected to possess them as well.
Although this lessens India's Soft Power, India's stance remains unchanged due to strategic planning. The same goes for Complete Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). However, in an attempt to make up for this, India adopted the 'No First Use Policy'.
Bottomline: Given the possession of nuclear arsenal by many nations (including Pakistan), and in order to not make any mistake in her defense strategy, India has not signed the NPT and the CTBT.
Manthan Vijay Shah, History and politics <3
For a moment, forget about India. Just have a look at Ukraine....Ukraine got separated from the USSR few decades back....and at that time it took a decision of having no nukes.....that is signing the NPT... recently we saw that a comparatively weaker Russia (than the USSR in its prime), a nuke enabled country overtook Crimea and is in the possibility of annexng Donetsk as well....would this have happened if Ukraine had been a nuke-powered country? Would Russia have still gone ahead in annexng Crimea? I think not.....
Let's come back to India.....the country which perennially lives in the backdrop of threats coming from Pakistan, infiltration in Jammu and Kashmir, Assam (from Bangladesh) and an over assertive which shall soon have the largest army in the world.....being a nuke powered country gives India security and discourages anti-indian elements....Think of Pakistan annexng J&K just like Russia did in Ukraine.....what will India be able to do? The whole of Europe and US could not help Ukraine....here the odds are even more skewed..... may support Pak to annex J&K.....India has signed a no first use policy but giving up nukes is not an option......for a moment you might even consider Israel without nukes surrounded by enemies on all sides.....Iran, Palestine, Jordan,Egypt......nukes are a must if u want to protect the country
Sanjeeva Shukla, Firewalled by Logic, fueled by thinking, I dive when they swim.
It sure takes some guts to keep rejecting the NPT such consistently - something that's been signed by almost everybody around - except for India, Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan. And we have to.give it to India, Pakistan and Israel, that they've kept the Uranium supplies uninterrupted despite the NPT ban on countries to sell stuff to the 'errant' nations!
India's argument has been consistent: ONE, in the presence of nuclear neighbors, and in the absence of any mechanism within the NPT to ensure deterrence, India cannot sacrifice it's security interests.
And TWO, which is very sharp, too - that the NWS - the five Nuclear Weapons States - US, UK, France, and Russia - don't show any proof or credible evidence that they are mounting down yet from their stockpiles, and are indeed de-nuclearizing themselves - a clause which too is an integral tenet of the NPT, and the NWS have to follow that.
That's why, India's stance looks fair enough: If NWS are not following a tenet after being a party to the NPT, what's India's crime in not signing the NPT. But yes, it can be certainly argued, that the NPT regime may have certainly succeeded in almost stop a rampant spread of nuclearization threat among other nations, as all NPT signatories are barred from trading in technologies, material, software and hardware meant for war games.
Dan Kim, Worked in defense R&D, banking. Currently in Asset Mgmt
Because India believes NPT treaty is unfair because some states are allowed to have nukes. It also doesn't like the fact that some countries are required to do more to prove that they are not trying to go nuclear than others. For example, NPT would have required India to do more to prove that it's not researching nukes than say Sweden. But ultimately, because India believed that it should have the nuclear weapons.
India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."
Prasad Patil, works at Students
First we need to understand what is Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 1958 Ireland proposed this system. It was opened to sign from 1968. Treaty states that whoever tested the nuclear weapon before 1964, can keep their weapons, but after 1964, no country is allowed to test nuclear weapon.
India tested its nuclear weapon in 1974. Thus if India sign up for NPT, India will have to destroy nuclear weapons Indians have. We are secured from and Pakistan just because of nuclear weapons. has large army compared with our army. So India will never sign this treaty.
Anil Singh, Analyst
India argues that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid. India's then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."
Shijoe Joseph, Technical Support Consultant at Rogers Communications (2018-present)
Underdogs won’t always remain so, because every dog has its day.
Do we still say, women aren’t supposed to hold jobs? Nope! Similarly, the old relics, though to be respected for its pioneering quality, need to be tad adjusted because we have Pakistan and as our neighbours, and Lord knows when they are gonna get all cranky; so on and so forth.
Besides, what about equality for all, ey?! Everybody has the right to nuclear power (yes, even North Korea, as much as that scares the crap out of us), not just the elite 1st world Ladies.
The key is to follow NPT core guidelines and use said nuclear power to heal the planet (I know, that itself is ironic, but there is no going back now) and better all forms of life on her sublime bosom (yes, non-human beings are important, too).
Amey Parulkar, Grad student in CS at TAMU.
NPT is a unfair treaty to the non-nuclear weapons states I.e states other than big five ( US, Russia, , UK, France), it says that those who have nuclear weapons have no obligation to give them up while others are not allowed to have them. India is committed to nuclear non-proliferation, but does not want to endorse such a biased treaty.
Aliasger Fanaswalla, Ernst & Young
Because its essential for our survival . We are surrounded by two hostile countries and one of them already being a to be super power - .
Nuclear weapons gives us the right to self determination.
The peace of mind to focus on non military sectors without worrying about our nation getting conquered .
Nuclear weapons is to our survival as meat for the Lion. We can stay without it but not for long.
We can't fight endlessly and nuclear weapons has given us the right to assert ourselves and to have a say on foreign policies .
No matter what , we won't sign the NPT.