Revision summary
The NPT recognises only five nuclear-weapon States by a 1967 date. India rejected that hierarchy as unequal law. China’s arsenal and later Pakistan made accession a security risk. 1974 and 1998 locked a weapons-capable identity. A US-led NSG waiver later gave civilian trade without signature.
Model answer
Introduction
The NPT of 1968 divides nuclear-weapon States as of 1967 from all others. India refused to sign as a nuclear have-not. The reasons are legal inequality, security, and status.
Body
Discriminatory structure
- Article IX’s cut-off date freezes five recognised nuclear-weapon States. India called this nuclear apartheid, not a genuine non-proliferation community.
- Disarmament duties on the five remained vague. Horizontal proliferation was policed more than vertical reduction.
Security and autonomy
- China tested in 1964. The 1962 war sat in memory. An open-ended non-nuclear vow looked reckless in a Waltzian self-help world.
- Pakistan’s programme and later tests made a unilateral NPT accession even less likely.
- Peaceful nuclear explosion in 1974 and the 1998 tests showed a dual civil–military path that the NPT’s non-nuclear box could not hold.
Diplomatic identity
- NAM and NIEO-era India treated unequal treaties as a continuation of hierarchy, akin to Carr’s unmasking of status-quo law.
- India offered a nuclear-weapon-free world and later a voluntary test moratorium, but not accession as a non-nuclear-weapon State.
After refusal
- NSG sanctions followed 1974 and 1998. The later US civil nuclear deal and NSG waiver gave trade without NPT signature, which confirmed New Delhi’s bet that exceptionalism could be bargained.
- Additional Protocol-style safeguards on civilian facilities were accepted as a price. The NPT itself was not.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD NPT[NPT 1968 cut-off] --> D[Discriminatory status] C[China 1964 Pakistan] --> S[Security self-help] D --> R[India refuses to sign] S --> R T[1974 and 1998 tests] --> R
Conclusion
India refused the NPT because it froze a hierarchy of nuclear haves, ignored its China–Pakistan security setting, and contradicted equal sovereignty. 1974 and 1998 made the refusal material. Later civil nuclear commerce came despite, not through, the treaty.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
What are the main drivers of India-Japan Strategic and Global Partnership?
Next question in the 2022 paper (Q7). View answer →
-
Could India join as a nuclear-weapon State?
The treaty text does not allow a new recognised NWS. That closed door is itself a reason India calls the NPT unequal.
-
Does refusal mean India opposes non-proliferation?
India opposes further spread to new States and supports many export controls, while refusing second-class status for itself.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the main limitations of the comparative method to the study of Political Science.
Comparative Politics
Comparison substitutes for experiment, as Lijphart argued. Mill’s designs fail when variables outnumber cases. Galton’s problem and conceptual stretching are standing limits. Official data and Eurocentric concepts add political distortion. The method is disciplined inference, not a controlled trial.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the main challenges faced by the developing countries in the era of globalisation?
Globalisation
Globalisation opens markets and tightens external rules. Wallerstein’s hierarchy and Prebisch’s trade concern still describe many late developers. Capital flight, TRIPS, and farm subsidies in the North cut policy space. Inequality, informality, and climate costs are domestic faces of the same pressure. Regional and South–South bargains are the usual reply, not autarky.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the commonalities between the Marxist and Realist approach to the study of International Politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Both approaches deny that trade and law automatically pacify world politics. Carr’s critique of utopia feeds realist and Marxist readings. Morgenthau and Waltz stress State power; Lenin and Wallerstein stress capital and hierarchy. Institutions are treated as masks or tools, not as a world government in waiting. The commonality is conflictual materialism; the split is State versus class.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.