The Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) once again failed to fulfil their obligation to move toward disarmament. Article VI of the NPT legally binds all member states to pursue negotiations in good faith for ending the nuclear arms race and achieving complete nuclear disarmament. Yet, decades after the treaty came into force, the nuclear powers continue to modernize and expand their arsenals instead of dismantling them.

India refused to sign the NPT in 1970 because it regarded the treaty as fundamentally discriminatory. The agreement recognized only those countries that had tested nuclear weapons before 1967 as “Nuclear-Weapon States,” thereby institutionalizing a permanent nuclear hierarchy. India argued that while the treaty imposed restrictions on non-nuclear states, it failed to establish any credible, time-bound commitment for disarmament by the recognized nuclear powers. From India’s perspective, the NPT froze global inequality instead of eliminating the danger of nuclear proliferation.

The nuclearization of South Asia in 1998, when both India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons, marked the beginning of a dangerous regional arms race. Fortunately, no additional country has since joined the nuclear club. However, the continued possession of nuclear weapons by a handful of powerful nations weakens the moral argument against nuclear proliferation elsewhere. As long as major powers insist that nuclear weapons are essential for their security, other countries will inevitably seek the same capability.

The present global situation makes this danger even more alarming. Wars and conflicts are spreading across regions with devastating consequences. The war in Ukraine has continued for four years. Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed tens of thousands of people, including thousands of children. The attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel, civil conflicts in Sudan and other African countries, and the continuing tensions between India and Pakistan — with China openly backing Pakistan — have created deep uncertainty across the world.

All this is adding to increase in the arms race. The Military Industrial Complex is making huge profits at the cost of human lives, climate chaos and damage to the infrastructure. A growing narrative today suggests that countries armed with advanced weapons are less likely to be attacked, while militarily weak nations remain vulnerable to aggression. Consequently, governments are being encouraged to continuously increase military spending and stockpile sophisticated armaments. Lebanon, for example, is often cited as a country unable to resist Israeli military pressure because of its relatively limited military expenditure.

The old doctrine — “If you want peace, prepare for war” — which once appeared outdated, is again gaining acceptance. Yet such thinking pushes humanity into a dark tunnel with no visible light at the end.

In this atmosphere, the nuclear lobby is aggressively promoting the argument that nuclear weapons are necessary as a deterrent. It is often claimed that had Ukraine retained nuclear weapons, Russia would not have attacked it.

However, this argument does not stand the test of reality. India and Pakistan both became nuclear powers in 1998, yet nuclear weapons did not prevent military confrontation between them. The Kargil conflict erupted in 1999, proxy wars and terrorist violence have continued for decades, and recently the two countries witnessed another dangerous four-day military confrontation. Nuclear weapons have therefore failed to guarantee peace or stability.

After the Second World War, the world witnessed serious efforts toward peaceful coexistence and nuclear restraint. Several important arms control agreements were signed between the United States and the Soviet Union. At the same time, newly independent nations under leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Josip Broz Tito, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Kwame Nkrumah built the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). More than 120 countries joined the movement, advocating peace, respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and opposition to neo-colonial domination.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the dominant power in a unipolar world. It expanded its military influence globally and established hundreds of military bases across different regions. Massive military expenditure and strategic interventions became central features of global politics.

Today, however, the international order is undergoing significant change. China’s economic rise, technological advancement, and Russia’s resurgence have contributed to the emergence of a multipolar world. In this context, BRICS has emerged as an important grouping. Although BRICS cannot be equated with the Non-Aligned Movement, it promotes principles such as sovereign equality, mutual respect, inclusiveness, and reform of international institutions to make them more representative and democratic. Its proposals for reducing dependence on the US dollar in international trade reflect these changing global dynamics.

At the same time, aggressive rhetoric among nations is fuelling a fresh arms race, particularly in Asia. India and Pakistan continue to expand their military capabilities, while China’s defense expenditure is growing rapidly. Modern warfare has also fundamentally changed. Drones, missiles, cyber warfare, and artificial intelligence-driven weapons have dramatically increased destructive capacity far beyond traditional conventional arms. Contrary to the earlier times it is the non-combatants who die in much larger number as compared to the combatants during the wars these days.

Asia is increasingly becoming a geopolitical battleground. Although recent reports indicate possible efforts toward ending some ongoing conflicts, major concerns remain unresolved — including the role of US military bases in different parts of the world and the destabilizing impact of continuing regional rivalries.

The United States’ attempts to assert control over territories such as Greenland and its hostile posture toward countries like Cuba and Venezuela contradict the principles of peaceful coexistence. Peace cannot be achieved through threats, coercion, and unilateral domination. The era of unquestioned unipolar control is rapidly fading. The Global South is increasingly asserting itself, supported in part by Russia and China.

If the United States and other nuclear powers genuinely want to prevent further nuclear proliferation, they must begin by dismantling their own nuclear arsenals under strict international verification. Genuine disarmament cannot be selective; it must apply equally to all nations.

At this critical moment, civil society, peace movements, and all those committed to disarmament have a historic responsibility to challenge the growing militaristic narrative. The struggle for nuclear disarmament must go hand in hand with the promotion of social harmony within nations and peaceful relations among neighbours.

Diplomacy, dialogue, and cooperation must replace threats, intimidation, and the politics of destruction. Humanity cannot secure peace through an endless accumulation of weapons capable of annihilating civilization itself. (IPA Service)