In fact, contrary to assertions of the opponents of the 123 Agreement, it strengthens India’s position on testing compared to the situations in 1974 and 1998. At that time when tests were conducted, the US imposed sanctions. Article 14 of the 123 Agreement provides that there will have to be one year’s notice before termination of the agreement and there should be consultations. Article 14(2) says “They further agree to take into account whether the circumstances that may lead to termination or cessation resulted from a party’s serious concern about a changed security environment or as a response to a similar action by other states which could impact national security.”

Further, article 13(1) stipulates “The parties recognise that such consultations are between two states with advanced nuclear technology which have agreed to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology”.

In these two clauses Indian diplomats have secured the country’s right to test if the security environment deteriorates and if the US or any other nuclear weapon power were to test. In other words, the 123 Agreement strengthens India’s hands immeasurably in terms of the right to test in case of some other power testing or serious deterioration in security environment. It would appear that articles 13 and 14 of the agreement have not been carefully studied by those who oppose it.

Any Indian prime minister considering testing will have to weigh carefully the consequences of such an act and the judgement of the prime minister may vary from time to time depending on his/her assessment of consequences. Indira Gandhi conducted Pokharan I in 1974 braving international disapproval. But in 1983, after ordering a test she cancelled it. Atal

... contd.