Opinion India must resume its vanguard role in ridding the world of nuclear weapons

That was the position in 1996. Now, in 2022, we do have an international law in the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), passed in January 2021. It now constitutes the law on the subject. It was passed by 122 members of the UN General Assembly — a clear majority — and has entered into force after its ratification by 50 member-States of the UN. The number of signatories has since risen to 91. Thus, a treaty with binding force has now become part and parcel of international law on the subject. Any threat or use of nuclear weapons is now a clear violation of international law. This last view has not yet been referred to the ICJ to ascertain whether in their view legislation passed by the UN by an overwhelming majority, and now ratified by more than the required number to enter into force, would over-rule the three-decades old opinion of the International Court, which was not unanimous and did not represent the views of the developing world.

Indeed, back in 1996, the minority opinion of the three judges of the ICJ from developing countries (Sri Lanka, Guyana and Sierra Leone) was against any use of “hyper-destructive “weapons in any circumstances. This is now the position taken by an overwhelming majority of member-states of the UN. Therefore, the highest priority should now be attached to taking the issue before the ICJ for fresh consideration of the issue.

What perhaps Nariman could not mention for want of space were two developments, one recent, the other of a longer vintage more than three decades ago, that would have reinforced his argument. The recent development in international law is that we now have a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which even outlaws the “possession” of nuclear weapons. It arises in part from ICJ’s injunction back in 1996 that the international community is bound by an “obligation to pursue in good faith and to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”. This is precisely the process of “negotiations“ in “good faith” that has resulted in TPNW, 2001.

India did not vote in favour of the treaty. Especially since the last eight years, our country has shown no inclination to champion the cause of universal nuclear disarmament. This is in sharp contrast to the vocal opposition that Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi expressed to the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons. They were followed by Rajiv Gandhi who presented to the UN in 1988 a detailed action plan on how to arrive in stages to a nuclear-weapons-free and nonviolent world order within a timeline of 22 years, that is by 2010. When that deadline was approaching with no attempt at implementing the proposed action plan, Pranab Mukherjee, as foreign minister, proposed in the UN in 2006 a summary of the main objectives of the action plan as a working paper. But since the emergence of the BJP-led government in 2014, India appears to have disavowed both the action plan and the working paper. It is significant that Mukherjee’s working paper followed, and did not precede, India becoming a de facto nuclear weapon state nearly a decade earlier.

Whereas the action plan and working paper had few takers, there has now emerged a majority of non-nuclear states who seek a world without these and other weapons of mass destruction. A precedent exists in the UN convention that outlaws the use or threat of use of chemical weapons. The TPNW reflects many of the key provisions of the chemical weapons prohibition treaty. If chemical weapons can be banned by UN decision, why not nuclear weapons?

Were India to resume its traditional vanguard role in matters relating to ridding the world of these awful weapons, we would be the first de facto nuclear weapon state to argue for the elimination of these highly dangerous weapons. It is a clarion call to renew the stand for which we were once renowned and thus become the only state with the capacity and stockpile of nuclear weapons to join the current tide of world opinion that desires the prohibition of these weapons. It would be an act of statesmanship that carries forward the legacy of the Ramayana and Mahabharata to which, as Nariman affirms, the three dissenting judges led by Justice Weeramantry of Sri Lanka based their view that, “equipped with the necessary array of principles and cultural tradition with which to respond”, the continuing stockpiling of nuclear weapons by more and more countries to be a violation of international humanitarian law.

The writer is a former Union minister