Connect with us

South Asia

Nepal Left alliance wins majority in parliament, economy main trust



A Left alliance between former Maoist rebels and moderate communists will form the next government in Nepal as it won a clear majority of 91 seats out of 165 seats in the historic polls many hope will bring political stability to the country.

The CPN-Maoist led by former premier Prachanda and CPN-UML led by former prime minister KP Oli have forged an electoral alliance for both the provincial and parliamentary elections under the first-past-the-post election system.

Nepal will elect a federal parliament, which will elect a prime minister, president, and vice president for the country. Provincial assemblies for each of Nepal’s seven provinces will also be elected, which will then choose the chief ministers of the provinces.

Nepal has a parallel voting system, which sees different candidates selected in two ways. Under the proportional representation category, in which voters select a party, as many as 6,094 candidates are contesting the federal and provincial elections to be held on November 26 and December 7, according to the Election Commission’s publicly released list of PR candidates.

The house of representatives consists of 275 members, of which 165 were elected directly under the first-past-the-post system while the remaining 110 come through the proportional representation system. As the Left alliance has secured a clear majority in the 275-member Parliament, Oli was being projected to succeed Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. Oli won from the Jhapa-5 constituency by more than 28,000 votes as he defeated Nepali Congress candidate Khagendra Adhikari. He polled 57,139 votes, the highest number of votes so far secured by any candidate in the election.

More than 12.2 million people were eligible to vote in the second phase elections, which come 10 days after the country’s mountainous north cast their ballots. The streets of Kathmandu were eerily quiet as polls opened, with vehicles banned from the roads due to security concerns. The vote elects the country’s first provincial assemblies, devolving power away from a top-heavy central government that has cycled through 10 leaders in the last 11 years. “Now there will be specific people responsible for different parts of the country it will be more accountable,” said Bishwa Shrestha, 46, after casting his ballot in Kathmandu.

Voting in two-phased parliamentary and provincial assembly elections were held on 26 November and 7 December. In the first phase, polling was held in 32 districts, mostly situated in the hilly and mountainous region, in which 65 percent of voters had exercised their franchise. In the second phase, 67 percent voter turnout was registered. A total of 1,663 candidates contested polls for parliamentary seats.

Right from the beginning of the counting, the left alliance made progress and it has secured a resounding victory in the first ever state assembly and federal parliamentary elections held on Dec 12, 2017, obtaining a clear mandate to rule the country for the next five years. The victory will help the alliance focus on core development issues, which could put an end to the economic inertia witnessed over the years. Two Madhesi parties, Federal Socialist Party Nepal and Rastriya Janata Party, have so far secured 11 Parliamentary seats each. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party, the Naya Shakti Party led by former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and an independent candidate have secured one seat each.

Thousands of police and soldiers had been deployed ahead of polling day in the capital Kathmandu and the populous lowlands, with the build-up to the vote hit by violence that has left one dead and dozens injured.


Years of political turbulence have hampered development in the impoverished Himalayan nation, which is still recovering from a powerful earthquake that hit two years ago, killing 9,000 people and destroying over half a million homes.

The least developed Himalayan country held elections for its parliament and provincial assembly simultaneously in two phases on November 26 and December 7. The results of elections will fully operationalise the federal system cemented by Nepal’s new constitution in 2015, thus marking the concluding chapter of the constitution implementation process that began two years ago.

It took nine years after the end of a decade-long civil war to agree to a new constitution. The charter adopted in 2015 mandated a sweeping overhaul of Nepal’s political system to give greater autonomy to the provinces. But it also sparked deadly protests in the south by ethnic minority groups who say it leaves them politically marginalized, and have demanded amendments to the charter.

The Communist CPN-UML party was expected to sweep the polls, buoyed by its alliance with the main Maoist party comprised of former rebels who fought government forces for a decade. But the nationalistic CPN-UML has strongly opposed amending the constitution to address the demands of ethnic minorities that it views as being more closely aligned with India. Many in the southern lowlands share close linguistic and cultural ties with Indians across the border.

In the last three decades, the country has witnessed chronic political instability, including a 10-year violent insurgency, which badly damaged Nepal’s development and economy. Today, high-level unemployment persists.

According to government data, over 2 million Nepalis were working abroad in 2011, as they could not find employment at home. Young people in particular often go abroad either to study or to work, as they see no future in their country.

The far-western region, which is less developed than the rest of the country, said that roads, food security, health, safe drinking water, and education are their key priorities. There are several villages in western Nepal that are still untouched by roads and several rivers are without bridges.  Though parties have promised a lot in the past, they failed to deliver.

Nepal adopted a multi-party parliamentary system in 1990, but all the early parliaments were dissolved before they completed their five-year term, leading to political instability in the Himalayan nation. The parliamentary system adopted after 1990 also witnessed several malpractices, including horse-trading.

The last parliamentary election took place in 1999, but the parliament was dissolved in 2001 with the declaration of a state of emergency. For a long period, Nepal remained without any elected body, which sabotaged the governance system. After the signing of a peace deal with the Maoists in 2006, the first Constituent Assembly (CA) election was held in 2008. A second CA was elected in 2013. The CA also served as a legislature during that time, but its main mandate was writing a new constitution for Nepal. In this sense, the upcoming parliamentary election is Nepal’s first in 17 years.

The new constitution incorporated some provisions aimed at improving the drawbacks of parliamentary democracy. The number of parties represented in the parliament will thus decrease due to the new law. According to the Election Commission law, parties need to secure three percent of votes in the proportional representation (PR) category and one seat elected through first-past-the-post rules to sit in the federal parliament.


Nepal’s troubled south votes in historic elections many hope will bring much-needed stability to the desperately poor country, but which have been marred by violence and fears of ethnic tension.

The watershed vote marks Nepal’s transition from a monarchy to a federal democracy, after emerging from a brutal decade of civil war only to stagger through political turmoil and natural disaster.

Nepalis now want to see a complete overhaul of the economy, which has expanded by an average of around 4 percent per year in the last 45 years, except for some instances like in the last fiscal year when growth rate stood at 6.8 percent. The healthy margin of victory will definitely help the new government introduce favourable policies to attain this goal and raise the living standards. The south is home to a mosaic of ethnic minorities who say a new post-war constitution denies them political representation, a cause that has sparked bloody protests in recent years.

One of the cornerstones of the constitution promulgated in September 2015 is fiscal federalism. This constitutional provision has empowered local bodies and states, and enabled them to design policies, make decisions and introduce budget. This devolution of power has paved the way for local bodies and states to pursue development activities on their own, which will require huge resources.

It is well known that most of the local bodies do not generate adequate resources to finance their expenditure needs. For example, tax income of now-defunct district development committees and municipalities, and income of village development committees accounted for less than 2 percent of the central government’s tax revenue. This is unlikely to change drastically in the federal set-up because local bodies have not been assigned buoyant revenue sources. This is the same for states. This indicates most of the local bodies and states will rely on the central government for grants to meet their expenditure needs.

The constitution has envisaged four types of grants for local bodies and states: fiscal equalization, conditional, matching and special. The government, in the current fiscal year, has allocated funds to provide two of the four grants to local bodies and one of the four grants to states. These allocations have consumed over 18 percent of the government’s annual budget. If all the grants are extended in the next fiscal year, their share in the budget could exceed 50 percent. This will leave the central government with very little funds to cover other crucial expenses related to national security, management of federal administrations and embassies, higher education, debt servicing, pension, social security, reconstruction, implementation of national pride projects, and response to natural disasters and other emergencies.

So, the cost of implementing federalism will be huge and they cannot be covered unless economic activities expand rapidly. It is well known that funds mobilized by the government would not be adequate to give desired impetus to economic activities.

Political Stability

Over the last 30 years, not a single government has completed a five-year term. In fact, the average tenure of a government is one year. With the formation of new federal and provincial parliaments, there are expectations that Nepal will finally get a stable government that at least will last for at least five years, which will contribute to improving the country’s fragile economy.

The joint election manifesto of the left alliance, combining the CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center), focused on stability, good governance, and economic prosperity. The left alliance claims that under its government, per capita income will reach $5,000 within five years. The alliance also pledged to create a massive increase in jobs for young people.

The new government will face considerable headwinds, especially because Nepal is experimenting with federalism for the first time and huge resources would be required to run the country.

The common agenda of all the political parties is advancing economic prosperity and development. Nepal aims to be elevated from least developed country status to a developing country by 2022; the various parties have promised to achieve this goal. In their election manifestos, each party presented a plan for prosperity and development, including commitments to create jobs to tackle growing unemployment. Parties have also made promises to ensure social security and expand health and education facilities.

The newly-elected assemblies will be tasked with naming their provinces, which are currently referred to by number, as well as choosing capitals and negotiating budgets with Kathmandu — all sensitive considerations that could rekindle tensions in the ethnically-diverse south. How the politics will unfold will depend on how the new parliament addresses the problems and how well the provinces can function, the challenges facing Nepal as it enters uncharted territory as a federal state. If they cannot fulfill their promises then the groups that have been part of the struggle will not stay quiet. There is possibility of conflict again.

A Maoist leader said that though the Left alliance is tilted towards the northern neighbour (China), the new government needs to strike a balance between the country’s two giant neighbours (India and China) while pursuing its foreign policy. The two parties are also considering merging to form the largest communist party in Nepal. If they merge, the post of party president and the country’s president will be shared between Maoist chief Prachanda and top UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal, according to party insiders. There was a tacit understanding among three key leaders of the alliance to share the three top posts

Some of the demands of marginalized groups in the Terai region, including Madhesis and Tharus, are still unaddressed and the new government of Lefts should be addressing the grievances of them so that no fresh conflicts surface.

The government must attract private investment, both domestic and foreign. In this regard, the new government should not embrace rigid Left policies, but take a moderate reformist path to create a level-playing field for the domestic private sector and foreign investors.

Nepal could adopt a neutral policy towards its neighbors. Nepal’s powerful neighbour to the south China has long played the role of big brother in the landlocked country. But in recent years Kathmandu has played diplomatic ping-pong with its two large neighbours, India and China, who use big-ticket infrastructure projects to vie for influence.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Into the Sea: Nepal in International Waters

Sisir Devkota



A visit to the only dry port of Nepal will immediately captivate busy scenes with hundreds of trucks, some railway carriages and huge Maersk containers at play. Trains from the Port of Kolkata in India carry tons of Nepal’s exports every week. Every year, Nepal is fined millions of rupees for overstaying its containers at the designated dock in Haldiya Port of Kolkata. Nepal pays for spaces inside Indian ships to carry out its exports via the sea. This is the closest Nepal has come in exploiting economic opportunities through sea waters. Prime Minister KP Oli went one step further and presented an idea of steering Nepal’s own fleets in the vast international sea space. While his idea of Nepal affording its own ship was mocked; on the contrary, he was right. The idea is practical but herculean.

To start with, Nepal has a landlocked right to use international waters via a third country for economic purposes only. Law of the Sea conferences held during the 80’s, guarantees Nepal’s right to use the exclusive economic zone all around the globe. Article 69 of the Law of the Sea convention states that Nepal could both use sea as a trading route and exploit the exclusive economic zone of its sea facing neighbors. Nepal’s closest neighbor, India has a wide exclusive economic zone which consists of 7500 km long coastline. The article also allows landlocked nations to use docking facilities of the nearest coastal nation to run its fleets. An exclusive economic zone in sea waters is designated after a coastal nation’s eleven mile parallel water boundary ends; which is also a part of the coastal nations territory. Simply put, Nepali fleets can dock at India’s port, sail eleven miles further into international waters-carry out fishing and other activities, sail back to the Indian coast and transfer its catches back to Nepal.

Floating Challenges

Before ships can carry the triangular flag into sea waters, Nepal will need treaties in place to use coastal nation’s water to take off and build shipment facilities. Law of the Sea convention clearly mentions that the right to use another nation’s coast will depend solely on the will of the hosting coastal nation. Does Nepal have the political will to communicate and forge a comprehensive sea transit agreement with its coastal neighbors? Nepal’s chance of securing fleets in and around the Indian Ocean will depend on whether it can convince nations like India of mutual benefits and cancel any apprehension regarding its security that might be compromised via Nepal’s sea activity. The convention itself is one among the most controversial international agreements where deteriorating marine ecosystems, sovereignty issues and maritime crimes are at its core. Majority of global and environmental problems persist in the high seas; ranging from territorial acquisitions to resource drilling offences. Nepal is welcome into the high seas, but does it comprehend the sensitivity that clouts sea horizons? Nepal needs a diplomatic strategy, but lacking experience, Nepal will need to develop institutional capacities to materialize the oceanic dream. Secondly, the cost of operating such a national project will be dreadfully expensive. Does the Nepali treasury boast finances for a leapfrogging adventure?

How is it possible?

The good news is that many landlocked nations operate in international waters. Switzerland, as an example might not assure the Nepali case, but Ethiopia exercising its sea rights via Djibouti’s port could be inspiring. Before Nepal can start ordering its fleets, it will need to design its own political and diplomatic strategy. Nepal’s best rationale would lie in working together with its neighbors. The South Asian network of nations could finally come into use. Along with Nepal, Bhutan is another landlocked nation where possible alliances await. If India’s coasts are unapproachable, Nepal and Bhutan could vie for Bangladeshi coastlines to experience sea trading. Maldivian and Pakistani waters are geographically and economically inaccessible but Sri Lanka lies deep down the South Asian continent. If Nepal and Bhutan can satisfy Sri Lankan interests, the landlocked union could not only skim through thousands of nautical miles around the Bay of Bengal without entering Indian water space; but also neutralize the hegemonic status of India in the region. If such a multinational agreement can be sought; SAARC- the passive regional body will not only gain political prowess but other areas of regional development will also kickstart.

Most importantly, a transit route (such as the Rohanpur-Singhdabad transit route) from Bangladesh to Nepal and Bhutan will need to be constructed well before ships start running in the Indian Ocean. In doing so, Nepal will not only tranquilize Nepal-Bhutan relations but also exercise leadership role in South Asia. A regional agreement will flourish trade but will also make landlocked Nepal’s agenda of sailing through other regions of international sea strong and plausible. A landlocked union with Bhutan will trim the costs than that of which Nepal will be spending alone. Such regional compliance would also encourage international financial institutions to fund Nepal’s sea project. Apart from political leverages, Nepal’s economy would scale new heights with decreasing price of paramount goods and services. Flourishing exports and increased tourism opportunities would be Nepal’s grandiloquence. Nepal’s main challenge lies in assuring its neighbors on how its idea would be mutually beneficial. Nepal’s work starts here. Nepal needs to put together a cunning diplomatic show.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hug Diplomacy Fails



Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s enthusiasm is only to capture power; the same, however, cannot be said of foreign policy administration, especially in dealing with our immediate neighbors, and China. The best examples of his policy paralysis are the way in which demonetization and GSTs are implemented, or his sudden visit to Pakistan in December 2015. He is always in election mode. During the first two years, he was in the humor of a general election victory. Thereafter, he has spent much of his energy in establishing himself as the sole savior of the BJP in state elections, and this year he will turn his attention to the 2019 general elections.

Two years ago, without doing any homework or planning, Modi travelled to Pakistan from Afghanistan to greet his counterpart, the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, to wish him well on his birthday. He hugged Sharif and spent only two hours with him to try to sort out the 70 year outstanding divergence between India and Pakistan.

Modi strategically hugs fellow world leaders. He has no strategic perception. He believes only in the power of his personal charisma in dealing with foreign policy matters. This strategy has failed considerably with China and with our other immediate neighbors, but he neither intends to accept these mistakes, nor is he interested in learning from them. More importantly, an alternative diplomatic strategy is necessary to maintain our international position; through prudent policy articulations. Let us examine the impact of his hug diplomacy.

During the 2013/14 general elections campaign he attacked the Congress-led UPA government on multiple fronts, including towards former Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh’s policy on Pakistan. He proposed that the BJP government would have more guts to better deal with Pakistan. Under his administration, we lost numerous soldiers in fighting with Pakistan terrorists, experienced a 100-day shutdown in Kashmir, blindly allowed a Pakistan team to inspect our Pathankot Air Force Station, and generally continued down a visionless path in foreign policy. These indicate that Modi’s defensive and offensive strokes against Pakistan have failed completely, including the most politicized ‘surgical strike’ that did not contain the terrorists from Pakistan. Today, the Modi government is searching for policy directions in handling Pakistan, but sat in a corner like a lame duck.

In the beginning, when he took office, Modi perhaps believed that ‘everything is possible’ in international affairs simply by virtue of occupying the prime minister seat. Further, he thought that all his visits abroad would bring a breakthrough. His hugs with counterparts, various costume changes, and the serving of tea, indicate that our prime minister is using soft power approaches. These approaches were used by our first Prime Minister Nehru whilst India did not have a strong military or economy. However, India is not today what it was in the 1950/60s. Presently, hugging and changing costumes will not necessarily keep India influential in international relations, especially at a time when the world is undergoing multi-polar disorder. However, he is in continuous denial that his paths are wrong, especially in dealing with our neighbors.

What is the BJP led-NDA government policy on Pakistan? Does this government have any policy for Pakistan? Since 2014,Modi has not permitted the Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj, to contribute to any foreign policy articulations. As long as Sushma fulfills the duty of Ministry of Indian Overseas Affairs she will receive praise from the prime minister’s office.

During 2015 he met Sharif at his residence in Islamabad to give him a hug. This happened exactly two years ago. Further, this is a very serious question that the Media and Modi-supporting TV channels forgot to raise. Instead, without hesitation, they praised him for touching the sky, and described the moment as a diplomatic initiative for a breakthrough with our neighbor Pakistan. The Media will realize this mistake when their traditional viewers switch over to other channels to get centrist news.

What are the outcomes of Modi hugging Sharif at his residence? The results are terrible. India’s relation with Pakistan touches the lowest ever level in a history of 70 years. The Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed was released from house arrest and has started a political party to contest the general elections in Pakistan next year. This government does not have the guts to put pressure on Pakistan to provide the evidence – as requested by the Pakistan’s Court – essential to keeping the trial alive against Saeed. Modi has often preached that his government succeeded in isolating Pakistan in the international domain. The reality would be as much India diplomatically isolating Pakistan from the international community as the vacuum has been comfortably filled by China without any difficulty. These are the achievements that Modi’s hugs have brought to India.

The stability of Afghanistan is in India’s long-term strategic interest. India’s ‘aid diplomacy’ to Afghanistan in various fields has been increasing day after day, including infrastructure development and the training of Afghan security forces. Yet, India’s influence in Afghanistan is in disarray. Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said, “India should have its own policy on Afghanistan”. However, Modi’s policy makers in New Delhi are expecting the US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to maintain India’s active and significant role in Afghanistan.

India showed its displeasure during the constitutional crisis in Nepal, in halting energy supply to Kathmandu. This forced the land-locked country to obtain easy support from Beijing. Nepal was once the buffer state between India and China; it is now sitting on China’s lap and steering India. Modi’s mute approach to the Rohingya crisis speculates India’s major power ambition. This is a serious setback to India’s diplomacy: it is now pushing Myanmar to get support from China, along with our neighbor Bangladesh, in resolving the crisis with Rohingya refugees.

The first democratically elected government under Mohamed Nasheed was toppled unconstitutionally in Maldives. Since India has failed to raise any substantial voice against this atrocity, China has jumped onto the scene. New Delhi ought to have designed a policy to resolve the political crisis, but India, the world’s largest democracy, has watched this incident as a movie in the Indian Ocean Theatre. The highlight was the decision of our Prime Minister to skip a visit to the Maldives whilst on his tour of the Indian Ocean islands.

In Sri Lanka, China is designing its future battlefield against India. As the war against LTTE was over, Colombo started travelling in a two-way track, with India and China. Beijing’s love affair, apparently with Colombo, but with an eye on New Delhi, is no secret. Since Modi has allowed these developments without exercising any diplomatic resistance, he has given China a comfortable seat inside Sri Lanka. China has now realised that her weaved network against India can be strengthened easily in the Indian Ocean, because New Delhi only displays silent concern. After Modi took office, India – China relations have remained static. The border talks are on stand still. Beijing holds on to extend a technical hold on Masood Azhar, a UN designated terrorist. The dragon pulls our immediate neighbors to her side. These developments indicate that our foreign policy articulations are not supported by any clear strategic trajectory.

Modi’s diplomacy is like an air balloon which, once torn, cannot be refilled; a new balloon is needed. Hugging a leader does not lead to any commitment in foreign affairs. Personal charisma does not work as a foreign policy tool in dealing with a world power. For this reason, Modi cannot understand the setback he is facing with China, Pakistan, and our other neighbors. In comparison, Vajpayee’s or Dr. Manmohan Singh’s combined simple charisma as leaders or economists with appropriate home-work in the past; has caused tremendous results in foreign policy, including expected results in Indo-US nuclear negotiations. This is completely missing in Modi’s administration.

Hence, the newly elected Congress Party President Rahul Gandhi has said, “Modi’s hug diplomacy fails”. It was a valuable comment that the ruling elite should consider as a meaningful insight. Alternative approaches are vital to regain our neighbors’ trust, as opposed to China’s. However, Prime Minister Modi’s this year of work will be focused on the 2019 general elections, compromising the proper attention due to India’s international diplomacy.

First published in Congress Sandesh

Continue Reading

South Asia

Potential Consequences of Nuclear Politics in South Asia



Established in 1948, Indian atomic energy commission turned towards United Kingdom for their first help in the making of Apsara. Subsequently, with a similar vision, the CIRUS reactor was supplied by Canada, where, the heavy water came from the United States.

India, over the years, has built a nuclear program that has led to the making of a number of reactors. India’s 1974 “Peaceful nuclear explosion” implies to their hegemonic ambitions as India has the capacity to produce around 300-400 nuclear weapons. The continuous upgradation of weapons by India could lead her as a hegemon nuclear power that can deeply unsettle Pakistan and China.

Calling into question India’s stated intentions, when it comes to nuclear tests, the plutonium for its 1974 and 1998 tests was diverted from its “civilian” nuclear facilities. After 1974, India continued to claim its explosion was “peaceful” and advocated global nuclear disarmament, even as it rejected proposals by Pakistan to denuclearize South Asia.

From Pokhran-I to Operation Shakti, India has traditionally relied on plutonium and thermonuclear technology. In 1992, the then Chairman of Department of Indian Atomic Energy  acknowledged that India had succeeded in the past for achieving the target of highly enriched uranium, while the centrifuge program was facing critical and technical hindrances. Also, it was admitted by the former Chairman of AEC, Raja Ramanna that India was working to produce more efficient centrifuges which were used for military purposes.  At the peak of all these developments, it is important to note that thermonuclear weapons have far more destructive power than a nuclear bomb.

India may also be considering using its civil power reactors to increase its stock of weapon-grade plutonium. Robert Einhorn, the State Department’s former top nonproliferation official told the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in March that the officials in the Bush administration had the ambition to sign a nuclear deal with India, to “work together to counter China- to be a counterweight to an emerging China.” He further expressed his views that the nuclear deal had unfortunate repercussions, because other nations concluded that Washington was playing favorites with India.

India is the only country in the region having uranium reserves that are higher than what other countries in the region hold. India has already received roughly 4,914 tons of uranium from France, Russia, and Kazakhstan, and it has agreements with Canada, Mongolia, Argentina, and Namibia for additional shipments. It also signed a uranium deal with Australia that has sparked considerable controversy at home.

This massive production of uranium annually can support its nuclear submarine program and current weapons grade plutonium production rate indirectly. These uranium reserves are enough for approx. 6-10 bombs per year.

Adding a twist to the existing fissile material build-up process, the Indo-US strategic partnership supplemented it. Under this dangerous bargain, it would continue to not only allow India to increase its fissile material but also the capacity to increase the build-up of nuclear weapon material.

Hence, the strategic stability in South Asia has been negatively impacted since the initial stages due to the hegemonic designs which India pursued with the start of CIRUS reactor. With the passage of time, the Indo-US nuclear deal and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver have already added more repercussions and now the discriminatory move to try to facilitate Indian NSG membership will further erode the strategic stability in South Asia.

Indian NSG membership and its potential exemption has adverse implications on non-proliferation regime. This has allowed India to expand its military program. As a result of 2008 exemption it has signed a number of agreement in nuclear domain with different countries. Interestingly, Mansoor Ahmed states that India has the capacity to utilize the uranium it is importing from these countries to produce more bombs.  The aforementioned reasons sum up India’s keenness to obtain NSG’s membership. This U.S.-backed move to make India a member of the NSG will be good neither for Pakistan nor for China, and it would set off nuclear instability in the region.

While looking at the dynamics of left alone Pakistan since late 1990’s, starting from Indo-US strategic partnership to now this geoploliticising of NSG. Consequently, this shall allow India to use all this a means of making the most optimum use of all its natural uranium stocks for weaponization. To offset the stakes, it might be prudent to have a close check on the international architects of India’s nuclear build-up. The alleged misuse of U.S. and Canadian controlled items by India must be enough to refrain from any cooperation if it is not abiding by group’s guidelines and commodity control list.

Furthermore, the more discriminatory the international nuclear order becomes, the less would be the effectiveness of deterrence and strategic balance in the region. The NSG will have to identify that India’s 1974 nuclear explosive test was the reason that nuclear supplier states established the NSG. It must also emphasize upon its commitment to uphold the principles of the nonproliferation.

Continue Reading




Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy