President Clinton signed the treaty in New York on Sept. 24, and so did the remaining four nuclear powers - Britain, France, Russia and China, followed by 66 other nations, who swore on their signatures never to explode a nuclear device.
The CTBT, however, cannot come into force unless all 44 states with nuclear potential sign it. Since India is one of those nations and has refused to sign the treaty, it renders the document fruitless.
On the surface, India's refusal to sign the treaty makes it look like a Scrooge out to rob mankind of a historic moment for banning atomic explosions from planet Earth forever.
Is India then being simply a dog in the manger or does she have such compelling reasons for blocking the treaty that she is willing to accept the unenviable position of being isolated in the world community?
Ironically, India was the first to set the ball rolling on the road to a nuclear-free world, when it proposed an end to nuclear testing in 1954. The principles for a non-proliferation treaty also were laid down by India in 1965, followed by a call from India in 1982 to hold a convention to ban all nuclear weapons, including production of fissile materials. Again in 1988 at the third United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, India laid out a comprehensive plan for achieving the goal of an atomic-free world, within a specific time frame.
Why then is India now balking at this historic treaty, which she herself helped shape? India's objections are based on two grounds:
First, India feels that the treaty, in its present form, is unequal. It does not rid the earth of atomic weapons. What it does is to allow the five nuclear powers, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, to keep their nuclear arsenals intact, while barring the rest of the world from acquiring such weapons. As the ambassador of Zimbabwe said at the U.N., the treaty does not dissolve the nuclear club but only makes it more exclusive. India says that it would sign the treaty readily, provided it calls for total nuclear disarmament according to a fixed timetable.
India's second objection is of more serious and immediate concern to her because the treaty, as it stands, renders India vulnerable to nuclear blackmail from its northern neighbor and rival, China.
The CTBT, if implemented in its present form, would anoint China as a permanent nuclear power, while relegating India to the status of a non-nuclear and a second-class nation, which it must accept in perpetuity.
What makes the China factor even more ominous for India is that Beijing is widely believed to be helping India's other neighbor and adversary, Pakistan, in realizing its proclaimed nuclear ambitions. Recent reports of China selling to Pakistan M-11 missiles, capable of delivering nuclear warheads on Indian soil, have done little to allay New Delhi's fears.
Does this mean that by not signing the CTBT, India is planning to explode more nuclear devices, defying world sentiment against atomic testing? Not necessarily. India exploded only one nuclear device in 1974 and has refrained from testing any more such weapons since then. Inder Gujral, foreign minister of India, questioned on this subject, recently said: "At the moment the agenda to weaponize our nuclear capability is not there." All India has done, by not signing the CTBT, he said, is to retain its nuclear option.
Although the treaty bestows on Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States permanent status of nuclear haves, it does not mean that these five powers went to the signing table singing and dancing. In fact, according to published reports, it took a lot of persuasion by the United States to make China, Britain and France accept the treaty. Reason: Even though these five nuclear powers are members of an exclusive club, it does not mean that they share equal footing.
A brief history of nuclear testing clarifies the picture. Since the first nuclear explosion went off in America in July 1945, a total of 2,045 atomic tests have been conducted. Of these, 1,030 took place in America and 715 were undertaken by the former Soviet Union. That leave only 300 tests to be shared by the remaining three nuclear powers. This should give one an idea of both the number of nuclear weapons possessed by each member and the respective level of sophistication attained by them.
No wonder then that France, Britain and China, at least initially, were not very enthusiastic about the treaty. In fact, in a desperate bid to catch up with the United States and Russia, France kept conducting nuclear tests in the Pacific even in the face of loud protests from all of humanity. China exploded its 45th nuclear device while treaty negotiations were going on.
But the signing book is now open at the U.N. and nation after nation is lining up to affix their signatures to the treaty. Will India change its stand and join the party? "Not now, not later," says New Delhi. The only circumstance in which India will sign the CTBT, it says, is if the treaty is amended to include a fixed timetable for total nuclear disarmament.
But Washington is not giving up hope. "I don't know how it is going to change, I don't know when it is going to change and in fact I cannot even be certain whether it is going to change. But I think there will be a number of internal and international pressures that will build on India to change its position," said Thomas McNamara, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs.
In a report from Washington, Reuters news agency quoted U.S. officials as saying that while India and the United States have recently improved ties, "there could be even more economic and other co-operation if India signed the nuclear accord."
While India weighs its options, it sees dangling before its eyes the carrot of a better economic package from Washington. It also perceives China as dangling the bomb over its head. Will the carrot prevail or the bomb? Take a guess.