Non-Nuclear Agreement Treaty; Image Credit: NewsBytes

medium_ip.webp

small_ip.webp

thumbnail_ip.webp

ip.webp

Shocks and illuminations! These two phrases can perhaps comprehensively explain the history of nuclear engagement and, the reactions it has produced over time. In the international arena, nuclear engagements have had a mixed effect; while some like the Cuban missile crisis have been positive others like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki(controversial) have been negative. Shocks although are usually sui generis ' outcomes are shaped by their natures and contexts, by prior developments in the international system (including developments in norms and institutions), by great powers’ contemporary relations, interests, and capacities, and by expectations of what may lie ahead.'

After 1947, India began developing its nuclear power for civilian use. India's defeat in the 1962 border clash with China and the initiation of China's nuclear testing in 1964 majorly motivated India's nuclear testing. In May 1974 India's first nuclear test was carried out in the Pokhran test range. Simultaneously, the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in 1956, gave a green light to Pakistan's nuclear energy.

After the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war, Pakistan was divided and it increasingly came to believe that internationally it was isolated, since China and the U.S. had failed to provide assistance during the war. Furthermore, the nuclearization of India in 1974 would accelerate Pakistan's nuclear program.  In May 1998, India would conduct its second nuclear tests and consequently, on May 28 and 30, 1998 Pakistan went on to conduct its first nuclear tests.

India has a stronger hold over military, economic, and political power when it comes to population. Therefore, it is natural that the developing neighbouring countries might feel insecure and resort to a non-conventional form of security.

The reaffirmation of commitment to and the development of cordial bilateral relations and durable peace, thus became quintessential, and it was on December 21, 1988, that "The Prohibition of Attack against Nuclear Installations and Facilities”, also known as the India-Pakistan Non-Nuclear Aggression Agreement was signed by the Prime Minister of the Republic of India Rajiv Gandhi and the Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto. It came into force on 1 January 1991, and both the nations have since 1992, on January 1 exchanged records of their nuclear-related facilities, however with much skepticism.

The agreement discourages actions that might cause harm or to any nuclear installation or facility in each country. Nuclear installation has been defined as "nuclear power and research reactors, fuel fabrication, uranium enrichment, isotopes separation and reprocessing facilities as well as any other installations with fresh or irradiated nuclear fuel and materials in any form and establishments storing significant quantities of radioactive materials."

How does one perceive the role of India here?

> India's action cannot be viewed just as a reaction to Pakistan or China. Her growing 'affection for nuclear weapons ' has been reinforced by her aversion to the non-proliferation regime, which allocates to India an 'inferior status' primarily because of the regime’s political and legal stratification. The Indian notion of ‘nuclear apartheid’ clearly expresses this sentiment. Thus, 'India’s nuclear weapon programme has always been deeply motivated by the thirst for prestige'.
> 

Now the international community faces a huge dilemma: India's defiance may see no end if they are not given the status of a 'nuclear state'. However, such a wish is difficult to grant 'within existing structures of international law and without creating serious problems elsewhere (for instance, in the Middle East over Israel).’

Nonetheless, such agreements and programs have important implications for arms control regimes, to develop new multilateral instruments, for the political and normative debates, and for creating amnesty among major political powers.

Throughout history, the most number of battles have been fought over seizing power, from a small local kingdom to a huge empire. The lure of power is very tempting and rewarding but its misuse is equally dangerous. Modern nation-states have come a long way, from vying over a throne through bloody battles to the somewhat turbulent establishments of various countries. The new power dynamics of the 21st century are played beyond the land and water. The hunt now is for the bigger game; space technologies and nuclear weapons. Will peace prevail in such circumstances?