India’s reckless pursuit of nuclear ambitions

Ignoring safety

India’s public image as a “responsible nuclear state” stands increasingly at odds with its long and troubling record of nuclear security lapses. Although India tends to exhibit its confidence in its expanding civil nuclear capabilities, recurring incidents involving stolen nuclear material, illicit trafficking of radioactive substances, weak regulatory oversight and limited transparency expose systemic vulnerabilities within its nuclear complex.

These deficiencies are not episodic anomalies but part of a pattern that has persisted for nearly around seven decades, raising serious concerns about India’s adherence to global non-proliferation norms and effectiveness of its own domestic nuclear governance.

India’s historical track record reveals repeated failures in securing nuclear and radiological materials. Since the 1990s, numerous incidents involving the theft, loss, or unauthorized possession of uranium and radioactive isotopes have been reported across several Indian states. International media and law-enforcement disclosures indicate that more than a dozen cases involving uranium theft or illegal possession surfaced between the mid-1990s and early 2020s, including seizures in Jharkhand, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu. In 2018 and 2021, Indian authorities confirmed the recovery of uranium from civilians and scrap dealers, underscoring glaring deficiencies in material control and physical protection at or near sensitive facilities. These reported incidents highly emphasized that such materials should never circulate outside strictly regulated environments.

More alarming was the August 2024 arrest of individuals in Bihar found in possession of Californium, a rare and highly radioactive isotope with potential applications in neutron emission and nuclear research. Indian police acknowledged the seizure, while regional and international media emphasized the extraordinary sensitivity of the material and its potential misuse if diverted to malicious actors. The unauthorized circulation of such an isotope reinforced concerns that India’s nuclear security challenges extend beyond uranium to a broader spectrum of radiological substances, significantly increasing the risk of radiological terrorism.

These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of structural weaknesses. The nuclear material trafficking incidents in India have identified poor inventory management, inadequate personnel vetting, weak transport security, and insufficient oversight of civilian-adjacent facilities. The pattern that emerged indicates that many seizures involve civilians including the employees to sensitive nuclear setups like Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. In 2009, two contract workers attempted to steal computer spare parts from Tarapur Atomic Power Station located within the BARC complex. Just after nine months, some people approached the main security of the BARC Colony seeking entry as new recruits with appointment letters purportedly signed by BARC officials
Although such security breaches did not involve nuclear material, it highlighted gaps in the vetting and monitoring of contract labourers. These incidents indicated failures in perimeter security and material accounting systems rather than singular acts of insider betrayal. Such findings reinforce that India’s nuclear security challenges are systemic rather than incidental.

The Indian government’s response to such incidents has frequently been defensive and dismissive. Officials have often claimed that seized materials were “naturally occurring” or intended for industrial or scientific use, minimizing their potential danger. While technically accurate in some cases, such responses obscure the central issue: the unauthorized removal and circulation of radioactive materials constitute a serious security breach regardless of enrichment level. This tendency to downplay incidents has drawn criticism from security experts and journalists alike, who argue that it undermines transparency and erodes confidence in India’s commitment to international reporting standards.

India’s record reflects enduring and systemic nuclear safety and security challenges. Repeated uranium thefts, illicit circulation of highly radioactive materials, weak regulatory independence, defensive official responses, and ambitious expansion plans pursued without commensurate safeguards collectively undermine India’s claim to responsible nuclear stewardship. Unless substantive reforms are undertaken including independent regulation, transparent reporting, robust material accounting, and credible international oversight; India’s nuclear ambitions will continue to raise legitimate regional and global concern, with implications far beyond its borders.

Transparency concerns are further compounded by India’s inconsistent reporting to international mechanisms. Although India participates in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB), publicly available data suggests that not all incidents are promptly or fully reported. The IAEA has repeatedly emphasized that timely reporting is essential for global nuclear security cooperation and threat assessment. Gaps in reporting weaken collective efforts to prevent nuclear smuggling and raise questions about India’s compliance with best practices under global nuclear security frameworks.

At the institutional level, India’s regulatory architecture remains deeply flawed. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), tasked with overseeing nuclear safety, operates under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)— the very entity responsible for India’s nuclear program. This lack of institutional independence has been criticized by former officials, parliamentary committees, and international observers, who argue that effective regulation cannot exist where the regulator is subordinate to the operator. The absence of an independent nuclear regulator significantly undermines enforcement credibility and weakens safety culture.

These domestic shortcomings have direct implications for India’s standing within global non-proliferation regimes. As a State party to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) and a state bound by UN Security Council Resolution 1540, India is obligated to ensure stringent control over nuclear and radiological materials and prevent their diversion to non-state actors. Persistent thefts, weak oversight, and limited transparency undermine the credibility of these commitments and strain the integrity of the broader non-proliferation architecture.

Pakistan has repeatedly voiced concern over these developments. Following high-profile thefts and the 2024 Californium incident, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued several formal statements expressing “grave concern” over recurring nuclear and radiological material security lapses in India, warning that such incidents pose risks not only to India but to regional and international security. Islamabad has argued that repeated lapses call into question India’s claims of responsible nuclear stewardship and highlight the dangers of an unaddressed black market for sensitive materials. It is further emphasized that such trends exacerbate regional instability and undermine confidence-building efforts in South Asia.

These safety and security concerns are magnified by India’s ambitious nuclear expansion agenda. Under initiatives such as the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill 2025, India aims to scale its nuclear power capacity to 100 GW by 2047, while easing liability provisions and encouraging private and foreign participation. Indian policy briefs and parliamentary reporting indicate that the bill seeks to make nuclear expansion more commercially attractive by recalibrating supplier liability and streamlining regulatory processes.

While framed as essential for clean-energy transition, this rapid expansion risks outpacing India’s already strained safety and security infrastructure. Without addressing chronic vulnerabilities— weak regulatory independence, recurring material thefts, and limited transparency— scaling up nuclear capacity may amplify the consequences of future failures rather than mitigate them.

Despite the seriousness of these issues, the international response has been notably muted. Major nuclear partners continue to deepen cooperation with India, often prioritizing strategic and economic considerations over sustained pressure for safety reforms. The normalization of cooperation without parallel accountability risks signaling that geopolitical alignment outweighs nuclear security imperatives, potentially weakening global non-proliferation norms.

India’s record reflects enduring and systemic nuclear safety and security challenges. Repeated uranium thefts, illicit circulation of highly radioactive materials, weak regulatory independence, defensive official responses, and ambitious expansion plans pursued without commensurate safeguards collectively undermine India’s claim to responsible nuclear stewardship. Unless substantive reforms are undertaken including independent regulation, transparent reporting, robust material accounting, and credible international oversight; India’s nuclear ambitions will continue to raise legitimate regional and global concern, with implications far beyond its borders.