Arms Control in India: Treaties, Positions, and Policies

When it comes to global security, few topics generate as much debate as nuclear weapons and arms control. India’s approach to these issues reflects a unique position shaped by its security concerns, commitment to disarmament, and resistance to what it views as discriminatory international frameworks. Understanding India’s stance on arms control requires examining not just which treaties it has signed, but why it has chosen different paths for different agreements.

Understanding arms control versus disarmament 🔗

Before diving into India’s specific positions, it’s important to distinguish between two related but distinct concepts. Disarmament refers to the complete elimination of certain weapons systems, while arms control focuses on managing and limiting these weapons without necessarily eliminating them entirely. This distinction matters because India has actively supported arms control measures from the beginning, even as it continues to advocate for complete nuclear disarmament by all states.

Arms control agreements can take various forms, from limiting the number of weapons countries can possess to establishing verification mechanisms and building confidence between nations. They represent practical steps toward stability, even when complete disarmament remains elusive. India’s engagement with arms control reflects this pragmatic approach, participating in agreements that serve its security interests while maintaining its principled stance on broader disarmament goals.

India’s participation in major multilateral agreements 🔗

India has signed and ratified several important multilateral arms control agreements, demonstrating its commitment to preventing the proliferation of certain weapons of mass destruction. These include the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Outer Space Treaty.

The Biological Weapons Convention 🔗

India ratified the Biological Weapons Convention in 1974, becoming an early supporter of this landmark treaty that prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons. The BWC was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. India has consistently supported strengthening this convention and has called for a comprehensive verification protocol to ensure compliance. There is no evidence suggesting India maintains any offensive biological weapons program, though the country conducts legitimate biodefense research through its Defence Research and Development Organization.

The Chemical Weapons Convention 🔗

India’s relationship with the Chemical Weapons Convention tells an interesting story of transparency and commitment to disarmament. India signed the CWC in 1993 and ratified it in 1996. Upon ratification, India declared possession of 1,044 metric tons of sulfur mustard stockpiles, demonstrating transparency about its chemical weapons program. The country then proceeded to completely destroy its chemical weapons stockpile by 2009, meeting the treaty’s deadlines and becoming only the third country to achieve complete elimination of its declared chemical weapons.

India’s commitment to the CWC extends beyond its own compliance. With its large and growing chemical industry, India has the second largest number of declared facilities under the convention and has been filing chemical industry declarations in what international observers describe as an exemplary fashion. The country also supports the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and hosted the organization’s regional meeting in 2014.

The Outer Space Treaty 🔗

India is also a party to the Outer Space Treaty, which establishes principles for the peaceful use of outer space and prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies. This commitment reflects India’s broader interest in preventing the weaponization of space, even as it develops its own space capabilities for civilian and defense purposes.

India’s position on nuclear non-proliferation treaties 🔗

Where India’s approach becomes more complex is in its relationship with nuclear-specific treaties, particularly the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. India’s refusal to sign these agreements reflects deep-seated concerns about fairness and discrimination in the international nuclear order.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 🔗

India is one of only four United Nations member states that have never signed the NPT, alongside Pakistan, Israel, and South Sudan. This position is not simply stubbornness but reflects fundamental objections to the treaty’s structure. India considers the NPT discriminatory because it creates two classes of states: those that tested nuclear weapons before 1967 and are recognized as nuclear weapons states, and everyone else who is prohibited from developing such weapons.

Former External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee articulated India’s position during a 2007 visit to Tokyo, stating that India’s refusal to sign the NPT was not due to lack of commitment to non-proliferation, but because the country considers the treaty flawed in not recognizing the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment. India argues that the NPT creates a club of nuclear haves and have-nots by restricting legal possession of nuclear weapons to states that tested them before 1967, without explaining the ethical basis for this distinction.

This stance reflects India’s broader foreign policy principle of strategic autonomy and its resistance to hierarchical international orders that privilege certain countries over others. India has consistently maintained that it supports nuclear disarmament but believes this must be achieved through comprehensive, non-discriminatory measures that apply equally to all states.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty 🔗

India’s position on the CTBT is similarly nuanced. While the country maintains a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing since 1998, it has not signed the treaty itself. India has stated it will only support the CTBT if nuclear weapon states commit to time-bound nuclear disarmament. This conditional support reflects India’s view that testing restrictions should be part of a broader disarmament framework rather than standalone measures that lock in existing nuclear imbalances.

The CTBT cannot enter into force until all 44 countries with nuclear capabilities sign and ratify it. India’s refusal to sign, along with holdouts like the United States, China, Pakistan, and North Korea, means the treaty remains in legal limbo despite having been opened for signature in 1996. India’s position is that in a positive environment characterized by genuine disarmament progress, it might reconsider its stance on the CTBT.

The logic behind India’s selective approach 🔗

India’s willingness to sign some arms control agreements while refusing others follows a clear logic. The country supports and participates in treaties that seek to eliminate entire categories of weapons universally, such as biological and chemical weapons. These agreements apply equally to all states and work toward complete disarmament of specific weapon types.

However, India objects to treaties like the NPT and CTBT that, in its view, legitimize and perpetuate nuclear weapons possession by some states while denying that option to others. This selective approach is not inconsistent but reflects a principled stance: India supports arms control when it is universal and non-discriminatory, but opposes frameworks that create permanent hierarchies among nations.

India’s development of nuclear weapons outside the NPT framework was driven by security concerns, particularly regarding China’s nuclear capabilities and the regional security environment. Having developed these capabilities, India maintains what it calls credible minimum deterrence with a declared no-first-use policy. The country reserves nuclear weapons solely for deterrence and retaliation, never for first use against any state.

Looking ahead 🔗

India’s arms control positions continue to evolve as the international security environment changes. The country has gained greater acceptance in international nonproliferation regimes despite remaining outside the NPT. In 2008, India received a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group allowing civilian nuclear trade despite its non-NPT status, and it has since joined other export control regimes like the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Wassenaar Arrangement.

These developments suggest that the international community increasingly recognizes India’s responsible behavior and clean nonproliferation record, even while it remains outside some key treaties. India’s challenge going forward will be to maintain this positive trajectory while staying true to its principles of universal disarmament and non-discrimination.

What do you think? Does India’s principled objection to what it views as discriminatory treaties serve its long-term interests, or would signing agreements like the NPT provide greater benefits? How can the international community bridge the gap between India’s call for universal disarmament and the existing framework of arms control treaties?

References

1. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-india
2. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/tenth-non-proliferation-treaty-review-conference
3. https://www.studyiq.com/articles/non-proliferation-of-nuclear-weapons-npt/
4. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/india-nuclear-disarmament/