--V.Elanchezhiyan, LLM, Advocate
LC-1 2005-08
LC-1 2005-08
India in the past had shown aversion to the use of nuclear weapons as a tool of offensive military force, however had emphasized in use of nuclear power in productive process for harnessing scientific and technological developments. Nehruvian outlook was more aversive in harnessing nuclear weapon as a strategical point of view, rather the deemphasis was limited to destructive elements while he firmly believed in civil nuclear program. The Indian Atomic Energy Commission was established in 1948 to begin developing India’s civil nuclear program.
India precluded from signing the NPT on the grounds that it is discriminatory. India opposed the treaty for prohibiting horizontal proliferation (from states with nuclear weapons to those without them) but not vertical proliferation(within nuclear weapon states). India was antagonistic towards unequal obligation on states without nuclear weapons, however, India has committed to nonproliferation, the same was reflected from the general assembly agenda of 1964 where India was the first country claiming to insert nonproliferation into the agenda. The Indian vision was farsighted in comprehending the importance of nuclear technology as the technology of the future and is likely to become the most potent instrument of economic development and social progress, it would be invidious for a greater part of the world to become wholly dependent on a few nuclear states.India fortified its stand once more during the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) negotiations. The display of its aversion came into light once again in the 1996 Geneva Conference on Disarmament. India was the sole country to relegate from the consensus leading to blockade in submission of draft.
Despite its retrograde steps the U.S has had significantly supported Indian nuclear developments, but the later developments particularly beginning with developing indigenous nuclear weapons capability beginning with Israel by 1968, India by 1974 and Pakistan by 1988 took topsy turvy relationship with U.S. Though India claimed nuclear test as peaceful one, the “smiling Buddha” could not able to influence the world nations for apprehensions started nagging even the super powers, this resulted in formation of the NSG and the dawn of an new era of nuclear technology control based policies. Though the relationship with U.S/Russia was continuing the affront was felt by legal constraints with the result of Nuclear Nonproliferation act 1978. The Indian position overtly resembled as peaceful nuclear test but covertly the test is clear cut emphasis of deterrence theory against Pakistan. Sensing Indian test is not purely peaceful the Pakistan reacted to the deterrence exercise by counteracting nuclear test in 1988. The resultant test received admonishment by way of sanctions and Security Council Resolutions condemning the test and ruling out the possibility of India or Pakistan as a Nuclear weapon power.
With the growth of China as a superpower the U.S shifted its approach towards India recognizing the need to have strategic partner, the Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice visit in 2005 expressed the willingness to break the longstanding nonproliferation orthodoxy. The change in the stand was not per se enlightenment of Indian purity but to counterbalance the emerging superpower. The relationship between India-U.S is not symmetrical one but rather asymmetrical based on varied set of factors. Indian interest lies in guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel while U.S have ulterior interest in strategic importance of creating a base in Indian soil as deterrence against china’s growth. The benefits India intends irrespective of NPT signatory, the rights received to member of the treaty has undermined the very NPT treaty.
Iran claim to enrich uranium for peaceful purpose ostracized the hypo critic attitude of western nations who have consistently failed to meet their disarmament. Though it is signatory, so far have not ratified NPT, it quoted Israel, India and Pakistan who have developed their indigenous nuclear weapon capability. Therefore, the fission action has culminated into developing indigenous nuclear weapon capability is clearly evident from North Korea's claiming legal right to enrich nuclear capabilities. The assertiveness of claiming a legal right to development has been a chain reaction multiplying at snail’s pace.
Though NPT may appear a treaty aiming to bring under one umbrella under the aegis of International Atomic Energy association, nevertheless the objective of bringing all and sundry under the surveillance is directly proportional to contemplate International Law as a true law. If countries like Iran, North Korea claim legal right to possess nuclear energy as part of the inadequacy and environmental degradation due to depletion of natural resources, lack of resources to cater the ever booming population, there would be recalcitrant attitude of nations over the very foundation of NPT which would indirectly put the International Law under the limbo, denoting Holland's claim of International Law as a vanishing point of jurisprudence would indeed become a reality.
It cannot be gainsaid that nuclear technology has advantages and disadvantages, the advantages is indeed incomparable because of their inexpensiveness comparative the energy produced above all it does not emit carcinogenic air pollution or carbon dioxide, an important factor for any nation dealing with clean development mechanism. The disadvantages is remote though would endanger the very survival of human being, like nuclear weapons falling under the hands of terrorist organization, nuclear wastes, remote possibility of accident would be extremely dangerous. Any tool falling within the hands of the reckless person would endanger the peaceful ambiance. The reason that disadvantage would cause irreparable loss the same should be completely banned would not be wise proposition. Any technology used with sufficient caution/precaution would provide bounty of benefits. A great deal of security and bureaucratic oversight is indispensable. Together with IAEA surveillance would couple the result manifold in nature.
Apart from security concerns and common defense, the use of nuclear energy would cater the needs of the public in production, standard of living and above all reduce poverty. Today the skirmishes of rise of gasoline has send a red alert to the common man who feeds of hand to mouth existence, he can only be relieved from the clutches of gasasur( ‘sur’ denotes rakshasa) through nuclear energy. The common man is going to starve to death because of price rise on the other hand there is a remote possibility of accident, terrorist attack, in both cases the demise of common man is guaranteed, then why not err on the side of caution. No doubt the bhopsophobia has left a scar in the Indian soil causing irreparable loss to the present and future generation was a reckless step adopted by the then Indian government, the present nuclear liability bill is indeed a cautious step that would act as a safety valve from genesis i.e. installation of nuclear plant, every step guarded with utmost caution, till the disposal governed by the law. what is the real problem for stunted growth in present Indian context is energy inadequacy, once we get the stamina to run with supportive endurance that is balancing by way of checks and measures through the reins of law, then the growth of India is irresistible.
India precluded from signing the NPT on the grounds that it is discriminatory. India opposed the treaty for prohibiting horizontal proliferation (from states with nuclear weapons to those without them) but not vertical proliferation(within nuclear weapon states). India was antagonistic towards unequal obligation on states without nuclear weapons, however, India has committed to nonproliferation, the same was reflected from the general assembly agenda of 1964 where India was the first country claiming to insert nonproliferation into the agenda. The Indian vision was farsighted in comprehending the importance of nuclear technology as the technology of the future and is likely to become the most potent instrument of economic development and social progress, it would be invidious for a greater part of the world to become wholly dependent on a few nuclear states.India fortified its stand once more during the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) negotiations. The display of its aversion came into light once again in the 1996 Geneva Conference on Disarmament. India was the sole country to relegate from the consensus leading to blockade in submission of draft.
Despite its retrograde steps the U.S has had significantly supported Indian nuclear developments, but the later developments particularly beginning with developing indigenous nuclear weapons capability beginning with Israel by 1968, India by 1974 and Pakistan by 1988 took topsy turvy relationship with U.S. Though India claimed nuclear test as peaceful one, the “smiling Buddha” could not able to influence the world nations for apprehensions started nagging even the super powers, this resulted in formation of the NSG and the dawn of an new era of nuclear technology control based policies. Though the relationship with U.S/Russia was continuing the affront was felt by legal constraints with the result of Nuclear Nonproliferation act 1978. The Indian position overtly resembled as peaceful nuclear test but covertly the test is clear cut emphasis of deterrence theory against Pakistan. Sensing Indian test is not purely peaceful the Pakistan reacted to the deterrence exercise by counteracting nuclear test in 1988. The resultant test received admonishment by way of sanctions and Security Council Resolutions condemning the test and ruling out the possibility of India or Pakistan as a Nuclear weapon power.
With the growth of China as a superpower the U.S shifted its approach towards India recognizing the need to have strategic partner, the Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice visit in 2005 expressed the willingness to break the longstanding nonproliferation orthodoxy. The change in the stand was not per se enlightenment of Indian purity but to counterbalance the emerging superpower. The relationship between India-U.S is not symmetrical one but rather asymmetrical based on varied set of factors. Indian interest lies in guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel while U.S have ulterior interest in strategic importance of creating a base in Indian soil as deterrence against china’s growth. The benefits India intends irrespective of NPT signatory, the rights received to member of the treaty has undermined the very NPT treaty.
Iran claim to enrich uranium for peaceful purpose ostracized the hypo critic attitude of western nations who have consistently failed to meet their disarmament. Though it is signatory, so far have not ratified NPT, it quoted Israel, India and Pakistan who have developed their indigenous nuclear weapon capability. Therefore, the fission action has culminated into developing indigenous nuclear weapon capability is clearly evident from North Korea's claiming legal right to enrich nuclear capabilities. The assertiveness of claiming a legal right to development has been a chain reaction multiplying at snail’s pace.
Though NPT may appear a treaty aiming to bring under one umbrella under the aegis of International Atomic Energy association, nevertheless the objective of bringing all and sundry under the surveillance is directly proportional to contemplate International Law as a true law. If countries like Iran, North Korea claim legal right to possess nuclear energy as part of the inadequacy and environmental degradation due to depletion of natural resources, lack of resources to cater the ever booming population, there would be recalcitrant attitude of nations over the very foundation of NPT which would indirectly put the International Law under the limbo, denoting Holland's claim of International Law as a vanishing point of jurisprudence would indeed become a reality.
It cannot be gainsaid that nuclear technology has advantages and disadvantages, the advantages is indeed incomparable because of their inexpensiveness comparative the energy produced above all it does not emit carcinogenic air pollution or carbon dioxide, an important factor for any nation dealing with clean development mechanism. The disadvantages is remote though would endanger the very survival of human being, like nuclear weapons falling under the hands of terrorist organization, nuclear wastes, remote possibility of accident would be extremely dangerous. Any tool falling within the hands of the reckless person would endanger the peaceful ambiance. The reason that disadvantage would cause irreparable loss the same should be completely banned would not be wise proposition. Any technology used with sufficient caution/precaution would provide bounty of benefits. A great deal of security and bureaucratic oversight is indispensable. Together with IAEA surveillance would couple the result manifold in nature.
Apart from security concerns and common defense, the use of nuclear energy would cater the needs of the public in production, standard of living and above all reduce poverty. Today the skirmishes of rise of gasoline has send a red alert to the common man who feeds of hand to mouth existence, he can only be relieved from the clutches of gasasur( ‘sur’ denotes rakshasa) through nuclear energy. The common man is going to starve to death because of price rise on the other hand there is a remote possibility of accident, terrorist attack, in both cases the demise of common man is guaranteed, then why not err on the side of caution. No doubt the bhopsophobia has left a scar in the Indian soil causing irreparable loss to the present and future generation was a reckless step adopted by the then Indian government, the present nuclear liability bill is indeed a cautious step that would act as a safety valve from genesis i.e. installation of nuclear plant, every step guarded with utmost caution, till the disposal governed by the law. what is the real problem for stunted growth in present Indian context is energy inadequacy, once we get the stamina to run with supportive endurance that is balancing by way of checks and measures through the reins of law, then the growth of India is irresistible.
No comments:
Post a Comment