Only those who believe in the mono-causal version of history will accept that India's adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the declaration of its stockpile to the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was driven merely by the non-discriminatory and universal nature of the treaty. In fact, India's attitude towards chemical weapons and the entire issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) reveals a comprehensively realistic approach. There are ideological, diplomatic, military and political factors behind India's posture.By promoting the CWC and diligently upholding all its provisions, India is taking a moral stance, emphasising that the CWC is an ideal, universal, non-discriminatory treaty. This will validate the traditional Indian criticism against other discriminatory treaties, such as the NPT and the CTBT. It will reduce the stigma that India acquired over the CTBT. It will also help to provide common ground with the US, which has recently ratified the treaty, while putting pressure on Pakistan and China. Although Pakistan has consistently maintained that it would join WMD-related treaties as soon as India does, it has failed to ratify the CWC, let alone declare its stockpile. Pakistan's bluff, that its WMD related policy is linked only to India, has been called. Were Pakistan to refuse to come on board the OPCW, India could certainly argue that there is no guarantee that Pakistan would join the NPT and the CTBT even if India did so. This would enable India to delink its WMD strategy from the Indo-Pak straitjacket.The military reason behind India's support for the CWC is obvious: there is no real protection against chemical weapons at the moment. Were this protection to be provided in the form of `noddy suits' and antidotes, it would be a tremendous financial burden on the already stretched defence budget. Even if this investment were made, the military effectiveness of troops equipped with `noddy suits' operating in the hot plains of Punjab or the hotter desert sands of Rajasthan would be severely curtailed.Besides, the use of chemical weapons would mean that the `civilised' and `sanitised' warfare that India prides itself on would begin to affect civilian populations and become `uncivilised'. Incidentally, India's support of the CPCW may also have to do with reports that the Chinese had conducted exercises with chemical weapons in Tibet in the late 1980s. Thus, India's rationale was to give up its chemical weapons and by taking a lead in the OPCW, to put pressure on China and Pakistan to give up their weapons too.Another factor behind India's almost unseemly haste in ensuring the CWC provisions were implemented relates to the domestic bureaucratic tussle. In the wake of globalisation, diplomats the world over bemoan the fact that foreign policy has been hijacked by ministries dealing with industry, trade and commerce. The Indian Foreign Service, which may have felt sidelined by the ministries for chemicals, industry and commerce, is no exception. Thus, by supporting the CWC the IFS lobby is clearly strengthening its own position and is asserting its right over foreign (and domestic) policy. The latter is on account of the IFS's say in the kind of chemicals to be exported or imported.The other group which could have opposed the CWC was the scientists from the defence laboratories working on chemical weapons, whose livelihood will be directly affected by India's disclosure. However, the incentive for them would be that with India playing a leading role in the OPCW - the agency charged with ensuring that CWC signatories follow procedures - they in turn would have a significant role in ensuring that this mandate is met. Under the provisions of the CWC a country cannot handle its declared stockpile of chemical weapons. So these Indian scientists may be absorbed into the world body responsible for dismantling chemical weapons, particularly so as the declared stockpiles are to be destroyed by 2007. Given that the US and Russia alone have over 70,000 tonnes of chemical agents the Indian scientists (along with other chemical weapons scientists) are unlikely to be unemployed.Thus, India's stance on the CWC and the OPCW has to be appreciated not only because it is idealistic but also because it addresses the security and political concerns of the nation in a pragmatic and realistic way.The writer is with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London
