Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Also called: CTBT · Topic: India's External Relations, 1947-1999: Non-alignment, Wars and Nuclear Policy · NCERT: Class 12, Ch 4 "India's External Relations"

Meaning

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT, 1996) bans all nuclear test explosions, in any place and for any purpose. It is not yet in force, because it starts only after all 44 states listed in its Annex 2 have ratified it (formally accepted it as binding) [2].

It matters because India is one of those 44 states and has refused to sign. India's refusal alone keeps the treaty from coming into force [2]. It is also a key example of India rejecting a nuclear order it sees as unequal.

Explanation

What the treaty bans

• It bans every nuclear test explosion.
• In any place: underground, in the air, underwater or in space.

• For any purpose: a weapons test or a so-called "peaceful" blast.

• So a "peaceful nuclear explosion" (PNE), like the one India said it carried out in 1974, would also be banned.

• It bans testing. It does not make states give up the nuclear weapons they already have.

How it comes into force

• The rule: the CTBT comes into force only 180 days after all 44 states listed in its Annex 2 have ratified it [2].
• Annex 2 states are the 44 states that had nuclear power or research reactors when the treaty opened for signature in 1996 [2].
• The effect: every one of the 44 holds a veto. If even one stays out, the treaty cannot come into force.
• Status: the CTBT is not yet in force [2].
• India's place: India is an Annex 2 state. So India's refusal alone keeps the treaty from coming into force [2].

Why India refused to sign

• It protects the monopoly of the five.
• The five nuclear-weapon states (US, USSR/Russia, UK, France, China) had already tested. They had the data they needed.

• The ban would stop countries that had not yet tested, like India, from ever testing.

• It binds only one side.

• Non-nuclear states lose the right to test.

• The five keep their weapons, with no fixed time limit for disarmament.

• It continues the NPT pattern.

• India saw the CTBT as another treaty like the NPT (1968), which divides the world into states allowed to have the bomb and states not allowed.
• The NPT had just been extended indefinitely in 1995 (with no end date), which India opposed [6].

Limits of India's position

• India did not sign, but it did not reject the idea of a test ban.
• After Pokhran-II (1998), India announced a voluntary moratorium. This means India chose on its own to stop testing, without signing any treaty.
• India still supports global, verifiable and non-discriminatory disarmament, one of the three pillars of its nuclear doctrine.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional basis:
• Making treaties with foreign countries is a Union subject (Seventh Schedule, Union List, Entry 14). So the decision to sign or not sign the CTBT is the Union government's.
• Article 253 lets Parliament make laws to carry out any treaty. India has made no such law for the CTBT because it has not signed.

• Article 51 (a Directive Principle, a goal the State should follow in policy) asks the State to promote international peace and security. India says it serves this goal through disarmament, not through unequal treaties.

• Key events:

• 1964: China tested an atom bomb. After this the Bharatiya Jana Sangh demanded that India build its own.
• 18 May 1974 – Pokhran-I ('Smiling Buddha'): India called it a "peaceful nuclear explosion". The CTBT would ban this kind of blast too.
• 1995: the NPT was extended indefinitely. India opposed this [6].
• 1996: the CTBT opened for signature. India refused to sign [2].
• 11 and 13 May 1998 – Pokhran-II ('Operation Shakti'): five tests. Because India was outside the CTBT, it broke no treaty duty of its own by testing.
• 28 and 30 May 1998: Pakistan carried out its own tests.
• 6 June 1998 – UNSC Resolution 1172: adopted unanimously. It condemned the tests and demanded that India and Pakistan carry out no more tests [3][4].
• After 1998: India announced a voluntary moratorium on testing. US and other sanctions were later waived.

• September 2008: the NSG waiver (a special exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group's export rules) allowed nuclear trade with India, even though India stayed outside both the NPT and the CTBT.

• Lasting effect: the CTBT is still not in force [2]. India's stand of staying out of the treaty but keeping a voluntary moratorium continues.

Don't confuse with

• NPT (1968): limits who may have nuclear weapons, with nuclear-weapon states being those that exploded a device before 1 January 1967 [6]. The CTBT bans testing by everyone. The NPT is in force (since 1970) [5]. The CTBT is not [2].
• Voluntary moratorium (1998): India's own unilateral choice to stop testing. It is not a legal treaty duty, and India can change it. The CTBT would be a binding legal ban.
• Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG, 1974-75): a group of supplier countries that controls nuclear exports. It is not a treaty banning tests. India got an NSG waiver in 2008 but is not a member.
• UNSC Resolution 1172 (1998): a Security Council resolution that demanded India and Pakistan stop testing [3]. It is not the CTBT, and it did not make India a party to the treaty.

Prelims Hooks

• The CTBT (1996) bans all nuclear test explosions, in any place and for any purpose. Trap: "peaceful" explosions are not exempt.
• Entry into force: 180 days after all 44 Annex 2 states ratify it. Annex 2 states are those that had nuclear power or research reactors in 1996 [2].
• Status: the CTBT is not yet in force. India is an Annex 2 state and has not signed [2].
• Which of the following has India signed? Neither the NPT nor the CTBT. India opposed the NPT's indefinite extension in 1995 and refused the CTBT in 1996.
• UNSC Resolution 1172 (6 June 1998) was adopted unanimously, condemned the India and Pakistan tests and demanded no further tests [3][4].
• After Pokhran-II (11 and 13 May 1998), India announced a voluntary moratorium on testing. Trap: this is not the same as signing the CTBT.

Mains Points

• India's stand against an unequal nuclear order (GS-II):
• The CTBT froze the advantage of the five, who had already tested, and set no timetable for them to disarm.
• India refused to sign but kept arguing for global disarmament.

• This was strategic autonomy (freedom to make its own choices), the nuclear side of non-alignment.

• Should India sign now?

• For: India already follows a voluntary moratorium. Signing could add to its image as a responsible state, which helped it get the 2008 NSG waiver.

• Against: signing would legally close the option to test. The treaty is still not in force [2]. India would gain little while the five keep their arsenals.

• Did staying out of the CTBT serve India's security? (GS-I/GS-II):

• Yes: it kept the option open for Pokhran-II (1998), which gave India deterrence against China.
• No: Pakistan matched the tests within weeks, and the UN condemned both countries [3]. Kargil (1999) showed that fighting below the nuclear level was still possible.

Related concepts

• India's nuclear policy
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
• Pokhran-I
• Nuclear Suppliers Group
• Pokhran-II
• Credible minimum deterrence
• No first use

Read more

• India's nuclear policy, 1948-1999