India’s Membership Bid in NSG and Its Failure

When the embargo was lifted in 2008, it implies that NSG had granted an exception to India 2008 for admitting nuclear trade for civil purposes. The natural step for India was to make a formal application to become member of NSG along with maintaining its traditional stance on NPT. Towards this, India gave documentation about its nuclear programme to all NSG members for reference before the recent NSG plenary in June 2016. India also approached various members ahead of the plenary to formally talk to them about the India’s membership bid.

However, being a non-signatory to NSG became a roadblock to membership to NSG. Due to China wall and Swiss backstab, India was singled out in the NSG plenary in Seoul in 2016. Hope still exists in 2017 Switzerland plenary session of NSG.

This topic must be analyzed in the light of the following questions:

• Why NSG membership is vital for India’s nuclear energy programme?
• What were the arguments placed to support India’s claims to membership of NSG?
• Is it necessary to be a NPT signatory to become member of NSG?
• Is the failure to get NSG membership a diplomatic failure for India?

 Why NSG membership is vital for India’s nuclear energy programme?

There are several reasons for the same. Firstly, NSG membership can allow India access to sustainable supply of nuclear fuel at competitive prices. This would help in fast implementation of stalled nuclear projects. This would further help to achieve SDG and INDC goals by their deadlines. Secondly, access to technologies can help India to fast forward its Thorium use programme towards energy production. Thirdly, India could also import reprocessing technologies, which are critical for three stage nuclear programme. Fourthly, the NSG membership could fast forward signing of Civil Nuclear Deals with Australia and Japan. These countries currently do not do so because of their non-Proliferation stands.  Finally, membership of NSG could allow India to be a part of the decision making process regarding supply of nuclear technology. It can later put its foot forward with a demand to bring down nuclear stockpiles all over the world and in turn make its neighbourhood safe too.

What were the arguments placed to support India’s claims to membership of NSG?

India has not signed NPT not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because it considers NPT as a flawed treaty which does not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment. Further, India got NSG waiver in 2008 despite its not being a member of NPT mainly because of its being responsible nuclear power. Civil nuclear installations of India are under IAEA supervision.

Further, NSG has member countries which do not meet the group’s standards. For instance, when China sold nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan, it was violating Article 1 of NPT. Similarly, countries like China, France and Britain have not showed any inclination to destroy their arsenals and pursue negotiations on disarmament, which is a violation of Article 4 of NPT. Unlike Pakistan which is accused of selling nuclear technology to countries like Iran, North-Korea and Libya, India has clean track record which meet the NSG’s standards.

However, India could not sell its philosophy mainly due to constant opposition by China. Further, while it was expected that barring China, rest of the member-states will rally behind India, after the United States urged them to support India’s candidature. But not only China and Switzerland but also countries like Brazil, Turkey, Austria, Ireland and New Zealand opposed India. Most of these opposed India for non-NPT signatory clause.

Is it necessary to be a NPT signatory to become member of NSG?

China objects to India’s membership and has cited India’s refusal to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the reason. On the other hand, it actively supports the membership aspirations of Pakistan into NSG. However, it should be noted that a country need not be an NPT signatory to apply for NSG membership.

Is the failure to get NSG membership a diplomatic failure for India?

Indian government’s futile efforts to get NSG membership were criticised, both at home and aboard, as a major diplomatic failure. However, we consider that it is a setback but not a failure because India’s application has NOT been formally rejected. A diplomatic failure would have been disapproval of the application rather.

Some say that India is still dragging its feet for NSG membership because of Nehru’s follies? How far is it true?

There are two theories towards this argument / claim. First is that India was offered UNSC permanent seat but it denied it and recommended that it should be given to China. Second, as per a Delhi-based think tank Observer Research Foundation (ORF), is that former US president John F Kennedy had offered India all the help to detonate a nuclear device much before China did it in 1964. However, both these were “informal offers”.

Whether they are true or not is not subject matter of our discussion. However, in 1955, Nehru while answering a question in parliament had clarified that there was no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. He said that the composition of UNSC is prescribed by UN Charter and any change or amendment in that can done only by amending the UN charter.