India's Nuclear Doctrine

• Intro:A nuclear doctrine states how a nuclear weapon state would employ its nuclear weapons both during peace and war.
• India’s nuclear doctrine was adopted in 2003
• 

• For NFU:

Manpreet Sethi- gives advantages of NFU No need for expensive nuclear infra Onus of escalation is on adversary No need to keep nuclear forces on trigger	Arun Prakash( former navy chief) - NFU was adopted, not merely as a token of nuclear restraint and responsible conduct, on India's part, but also because it is, by far, the least burdensome and inexpensive form of nuclear-deterrence.	Raja Menon- no nfu would destabilize he whole region. In his book A nuclear strategy for India- he talks about increasing India's nuclear capability to build an environment of safety and not to encourage any arms race.

• For first use:
• 
  
  

Bharat Karnad of Centre for policy research- NFU may be useful as a political rhetoric but it is a liability in a serious war planning. It requires India to first absorb a nuclear attack before responding in kind	Lt gen B S Nagal- no point accepting so much damage in first place. Puts population under huge threat. Calls NFU a formula for disaster.	PR Cheri of institute of peace and conflict studies -argued that , by making the NFU conditional, India lost an advantage without gaining any strategic or security value.

• Analytical points:
• C Raja Mohan- Book: crossing the Rubikon - India's nuclear doctrine shows India's nuclear abhorrence 
  
• K Subhramanyam- nfu more about perception than posture.
  
• such proposals are ideologically-driven short-cuts to demonstrate ‘resolve’ rather than a careful response to India’s strategic problems.”
• some scholars suggest that instead of massive retaliation , India like Pakistan should also go for flexible response 
• Perhaps India might only be the country that even after acquiring nuclear weapons mention in its nuclear doctrine that it believes a nuclear disarmament—> shows India as a responsible power.
• India’s defensive posture shows that India does not believe in rocking the nuclear boat 
• India’s NW are less for military purposes and more for deterrence , owing to the fact that it is surrounded by two nuclear powered hostile neighbors in the north.
• Would also hamper India's chances of entry into NSG.

• Conclusion :When it comes to NW the world must follow 3 pillared approach
• Universal prohibition
• Complete elimination
• International verification

• CTBT-
• Signed by 184 state and ratified by 168 states in 1996
• A multilateral treaty that Bans all kinds of tests civil or military. In all environments . PTBT allowed underground testing and also no mechanism for intl verification.
• Requires all 44 nw potential states to ratify to come into force.
• India,Pak,NK not even signed it
• India has not conducted any test since 1998
• Why India did not join
• Divides the world permanently into nuclear haves and have nots as it favours the nuclear power states
• No time-frame mentioned to dismantle existing nuclear weapons and is silent on complete nuclear disarmament
• Would hinder India’s strategic nuclear programme development for energy needs given its growing population and requirement of clean energy
• K Santhanam project director during 1998 said India should not rush to sign it
• Anil Kakodkar- former chairman of AEC said tests were fully successful and India should sign it.
• India is committed to no tests after Indo us civil nuclear deal
• India says developed country have simulation technology which can be used for developing NW

• NPT:
• Nuclear weapons are said to be “the great equalizer”, because acquisition of even a small arsenal by inferior powers is supposed to deter their strong rivals.
• The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology with the goal of nuclear disarmament.
• It is described as the “cornerstone of global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament”
• Provisins:( draw a triangle for first three)
1. Non proliferation(production and transfer) of NW by non nuclear states
2. transfer  of nuclear tech to non nuclear states for peaceful use in lieu of giving up rights to develop NW
3. Disarmament of existing NW by nuclear weapon states( not a single nuclear weapon has been reduced since the signing of pact)
• The Treaty promotes cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use.
• Divides into haves and have nots
• Prevents horizontal proliferation but not vertical accumulation and main reason for India to back out but CTBT also checks vertical accumulation
1. 
• Criticism-
• 
  Amb Rakesh Sood says- NPT has reached the limits of its success
• No fixed time to achieve disarmament
• Does not stigmatise possession but accumulation
• Not a whole hearted attempt as it allows use of nuclear tech for civil use
• A compromise to fulfill the interests of nuclear industry
• Should India join now?
• No!
• Hostile nuclear armed neighbours
• India not in a position to dismantle its NW & NPT will not change for India
• After civil nuclear agreement with USA, there is not much need for India to join NPT, as USA has permitted full nuclear commerce with India
• Conclusion : Same as above

• Further reading- https://carnegieendowment.org/2016/06/30/india-s-nuclear-doctrine-debate-pub-63950
• https://www.orfonline.org/research/npts-midlife-crisis/