Nuclear security is ultimately tested not by declarations of responsibility but by the ability of a state to guarantee that its most dangerous materials never fall beyond its control. In the nuclear age, a single failure in storage, oversight, or accountability can transcend national borders and create consequences that no government can contain. This is why every country possessing nuclear or radioactive materials carries a responsibility that extends beyond its own territory. India’s growing nuclear ambitions, however, raise difficult questions about whether its security architecture is evolving at the same pace as its strategic expansion.
For years, India has projected itself as a responsible nuclear power, emphasising technological capability, strategic restraint, and institutional reliability. Yet a series of incidents involving the loss, theft, and unauthorised handling of radioactive materials have exposed vulnerabilities that challenge this carefully constructed image. Nuclear credibility is not built through political assurances; it depends on transparent governance, effective regulation, strict material accounting, and an uncompromising command-and-control system. Repeated episodes of radioactive substances appearing outside authorised channels suggest that India’s nuclear security framework faces persistent weaknesses that cannot simply be dismissed as isolated criminal acts. These incidents point toward deeper concerns involving oversight mechanisms, regulatory effectiveness, and the ability of institutions to maintain complete control over sensitive materials.
India is a participant in the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) and is obligated under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
The issue becomes more significant when viewed against the international privileges India has received despite remaining outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver granted to India was based on the assumption that New Delhi possessed the necessary safeguards and institutional maturity to responsibly manage expanded nuclear cooperation. However, recent developments raise questions about whether these expectations have been fully met. Incidents such as the discovery of radioactive material at Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport in Lucknow in 2024 and the interception of suspected californium trafficking in Bihar’s Gopalganj district demonstrate the continuing challenge of preventing dangerous substances from entering unauthorised networks. The concern is not merely the existence of individual cases but the broader pattern they represent. Highly radioactive materials, including substances with potential applications in radiological devices, should never reach public spaces or illicit markets. Their appearance outside regulated environments indicates failures in tracking, protection, and enforcement that require serious institutional review.
Independent assessments have also highlighted these vulnerabilities. The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a prominent organisation focused on reducing nuclear and radiological threats, has repeatedly identified challenges in India’s nuclear security performance, particularly regarding areas such as material protection, insider threat prevention, and regulatory capacity. Such evaluations are important because they are based on internationally applied standards rather than political considerations. They underline a widening gap between India’s ambitions as an expanding nuclear power and the practical requirements needed to secure a complex nuclear ecosystem. Despite these concerns, India is moving toward greater nuclear expansion through both international cooperation and domestic policy changes. The uranium supply arrangement with Canada, involving major nuclear fuel supplier Cameco, represents a significant increase in access to nuclear resources. At the same time, India’s new nuclear legislation, the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, introduces private participation into parts of the nuclear sector, ending decades of exclusive state dominance. While supporters argue that such reforms will accelerate energy development, they also raise serious questions about accountability and oversight in a sector where even minor lapses can carry extraordinary consequences.
Opening the nuclear sector to private actors without first strengthening regulatory institutions risks creating additional layers of complexity in an already sensitive environment. Nuclear security depends on unified responsibility, rigorous monitoring, and a clear chain of accountability. If oversight mechanisms remain inadequate, greater participation by commercial entities could increase challenges related to compliance, insider risks, and the protection of radioactive materials. A state that has struggled to prevent illicit circulation of nuclear substances must demonstrate stronger safeguards before expanding access and reducing centralised control. The convergence of increased nuclear material availability and evolving governance structures demands careful examination rather than unquestioned confidence. The consequences of failure are not limited to accidental exposure or criminal misuse; they could include radiological terrorism, public panic, and a serious blow to global non-proliferation efforts. Materials capable of causing widespread fear and disruption can become powerful tools in the hands of extremist networks, making every security weakness a matter of international concern.
The international community must therefore evaluate nuclear partnerships through consistent principles rather than strategic convenience. India is a participant in the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) and is obligated under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Meeting these commitments requires more than diplomatic assurances; it requires measurable improvements in transparency, accountability, and enforcement. Continued political accommodation without addressing documented concerns risks weakening the credibility of the global nuclear security system itself. Major powers and international institutions must encourage stronger safeguards instead of allowing geopolitical interests to overshadow security considerations. India’s nuclear future should not be judged solely by the size of its programme or its strategic importance, but by its ability to ensure that every radioactive substance remains accounted for, protected, and under legitimate control. Nuclear security is a responsibility that cannot be postponed, because the cost of failure would not belong to one country alone but to the entire world.
The writer is an independent researcher with a background in Political Science, specializing in national and regional security with a focus on critical strategic affairs. She can be contacted at [email protected] and followed on X @OmayAimen