&w=3840&q=100)
What Iran withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty could mean for India
Whether India engages Iran quietly but assertively will be a decision that needs to be taken, Delhi is also in a position to work behind the scenes with Moscow and Washington to prevent the complete erosion of diplomatic options read more
Iranian flags fly as fire and smoke from an Israeli attack on Sharan Oil depot rise, following Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2025. File Image/WANA via Reuters
West Asia is at it again. Lighting matchsticks near oil drums. However, this time the fuel isn't being lit by a rocket but by a simple signature and paperwork. A potential withdrawal. Following recent military escalation between Israel and Iran, the Internet is filled with predictions of doom, with social media pages claiming the odds of a nuclear war in 2025 are now one in six, with even the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute claiming that the world is on the cusp of a nuclear arms race and very possibly actual detonation.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Iran, cornered and humiliated, is now indicating that it might be folding the page on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a decades-old 'insurance policy' for the world when it first woke up to the devastating consequences of nuclear technology, intended to stem the spread of the same.
No fireworks or explosions, just soft whispers in the Iranian Parliament that are beginning to sound very intentional.
However, this isn't just Tehran turning its back on diplomacy but, in all probability, the beginning of a long and deliberate undoing of restraint – the kind of which kept oil shipping lanes safe and power balances somewhat intact.
So what might this mean for us, Indians?
India has always been the careful dancer in a crowded room – one tied to Iran by centuries of cultural exchange, a mutually symbiotic oil dependence relationship, while also a friendly partner to the United States, whose rules of engagement quite obviously come with fine print and keen watchful eyes.
Now if Iran pulls out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, India will be watching a friend turn into an unpredictable wildcard.
For India, the cost will be measured in diplomacy, Indian rupees and the rising heat in an already volatile region and tense atmosphere.
Chabahar Port
Chabahar Port, once India's favourite geopolitical trump card to skirt Pakistan and reach Central Asia, is now trembling in the long shadow cast by China's Belt and Road and, of course, the collective Western discomfort.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
If Iran goes rogue, this trump card might well be rendered useless or, worse, be useful to other powers playing a scarier and louder game.
The Oil Equation
In the good old days when sanctions were bearable, India bought Iranian oil by the barrel. Deals made in Indian rupees, special discounted prices, shipping conveniences, etc. That chapter had to close under US pressure, unfortunately, but what now?
If Iran truly embraces full isolation, prices won't just be rising – they will writhe. Fuel bills, freight fares, rates of vegetables and other essential commodities will rise dramatically as the transport costs goes up. It's not going to destroy us in any way, but effects will be felt.
Every auto rickshaw driver, every delivery truck, every common man will pay. For India, which still imports over 80 per cent of its oil, the financial tremors will be very uncomfortable.
The Strategic Tightrope of Diplomacy
While India has been walking this tightrope for a while now, India's delicate relationship with Iran seems to be becoming more and more fragile and simultaneously crucial.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Our Western allies, already queasy about Iran's nuclear ambiguity, will now expect India to align more clearly with the West. However, a complete pivot at this point risks antagonising Tehran at a time when they are being aggressively courted by China with infrastructure, defence and strategic partnerships.
Also, one has to keep in mind that India isn't just watching this as a peninsular nation but also through the eyes of 8 million Indians living in the Gulf.
Any escalation involving Iran – whether triggered by sanctions, US pressure or Israeli responses – could make the region plain, outright dangerous, leading to an enormous humanitarian crisis. We've seen it before, in Kuwait, Yemen and Lebanon. However, this time the nuclear anxiety cloud hangs heavy over us.
India by itself is not a signatory to the NPT – a fact that has been diplomatically manoeuvred since the landmark 2008 US-India civil nuclear deal. Iran's potential withdrawal reopens uncomfortable global conversations about who gets to hold nuclear weapons and why.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India's well-earned status as a 'responsible nuclear power' could come under increased scrutiny, while Tehran's moves might encourage other powers in the region, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to consider nuclear options of their own.
The NPT's erosion might well trigger an arms race not just in West Asia but all over the world, in a domino effect.
For India, which has historically advocated for global disarmament even while maintaining a credible deterrence, this would be a major strategic setback. New Delhi must now be prepared for volatility in oil markets – hedge better, diversify oil supply chains and insulate the economy in whichever way possible.
Whether India engages Iran quietly but assertively will be a decision that needs to be taken. Possibly reinforcing the strategic importance of Chabahar and signalling that regional restraint is still valued.
India is also in a position to work behind the scenes with Moscow and Washington to prevent the complete erosion of diplomatic options. The NPT may not be the fairest and most perfect treaty ever signed, but it is still one of the strongest threads keeping the global nuclear order intact. An order that must be protected at all costs.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The treaty may burn in the heart of West Asia, but the smoke will drift in every direction. India, as always, must try to breathe both air and fire without letting either consume its lungs.
As a regional power with global ambitions, India cannot afford to simply sit and watch. Sometimes, the loudest warnings come from paper being torn in the quietest of rooms.
The author is a freelance journalist and features writer based out of Delhi. Her main areas of focus are politics, social issues, climate change and lifestyle-related topics. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
36 minutes ago
- United News of India
Israeli attacks on Iran N sites have caused sharp degradation in Nuclear safety, but no radiological release : IAEA DG
New Delhi, June 21 (UNI) Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in Iran have caused a sharp degradation in nuclear safety and security although they have not so far led to a radiological release affecting the public but there is a danger this could occur, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi has warned. 'Nuclear facilities and material must not be shrouded by the fog of war,' the IAEA DG told the UN Security Council, pointing out that the IAEA has been monitoring closely the situation at Iran's nuclear sites since Israel began its attacks. Referring to the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, he said this is the nuclear site in Iran where the consequences of an attack 'could be most serious". 'It is an operating nuclear power plant and as such it hosts thousands of kilograms of nuclear material. Countries of the region have reached out directly to me to express their concerns and I want to make it absolutely and completely clear : In case of an attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, a direct hit could result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment,' the IAEA DG warned. He said there was an incorrect statement to the media by an Israeli military official that Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant had been attacked. Although the mistake was quickly identified and the statement retracted, the situation underscored the vital need for clear and accurate communication and the Agency's unique role in providing it in a technically accurate and politically impartial way is obvious. Israel said on Friday it had struck Iran's only functioning nuclear power plant on the Gulf coast, potentially a major escalation in its air war against Iran. Similarly a hit that disabled the only two lines supplying electrical power to the plant could cause its reactor's core to melt which could result in high release of radioactivity to the environment. 'In their worst-case, both scenarios would necessitate protective actions such as evacuations and sheltering of the population or the need to take stable iodine, with the reach extending to distances from a few to several hundred kilometers. Radiation monitoring would need to cover distances of several hundred kilometers and food restrictions may need to be implemented.' Initial attacks on June 13 targeted and destroyed electricity infrastructure at the Natanz enrichment site including an electrical sub-station, the main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators. On the same day, the main cascade hall appears to have been attacked using ground-penetrating munitions. Grossi said the level of radioactivity outside the Natanz site has remained unchanged and at normal levels, indicating no external radiological impact on the population or the environment. However, within the Natanz facility there is both radiological and chemical contamination. It is possible that Uranium isotopes contained in Uranium Hexafluoride, Uranyl Fluoride and Hydrogen Fluoride are dispersed inside the facility. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if inhaled or ingested. He said the IAEA is not aware of any damage at Fordow at this time. Fordow is Iran's main enrichment location for enriching uranium to 60 percent. At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in last Friday's attack : the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor-fuel manufacturing plant and the enriched uranium metal processing facility which was under construction. No increase of off-site radiation levels was reported. As in Natanz, the main concern is chemical toxicity. The IAEA DG said the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor under construction in Arak, was hit on June 19. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, no radiological consequence is expected. The nearby Heavy Water Production Plant is also assessed to have been hit, and similarly no radiological consequence is expected. As stated in the IAEA's update of June 18 at the Tehran Research Center, one building, where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested, was hit. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings, where different centrifuge components were manufactured, were destroyed. There was no radiological impact, internally or externally. He said any action against the Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor could also have severe consequences, potentially for large areas of the city of Tehran and its inhabitants. In such a case, protective actions would need to be taken. Grossi said the IAEA would remain present in Iran and inspections there would resume, as required by Iran's safeguards obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement as soon as safety and security conditions allow. He said Iran's uranium stockpiles remain under safeguards in accordance with Iran's comprehensive safeguards agreement. More than 400 kg of this stockpile is uranium enriched up to 60 percent U-235. Any special measures by Iran to protect its nuclear materials and equipment must be done in accordance with Iran's safeguards obligations and the Agency. He said the IAEA had consistently underlined that armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked. Calling for 'maximum restraint', he said military escalation threatens lives and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic solution is within reach if the necessary political will is there. Elements for an agreement have been discussed. 'The IAEA can guarantee, through a watertight inspections system, that nuclear weapons will not be developed in Iran. They can form the basis of a long-standing agreement that brings peace and avoids a nuclear crisis in the Middle East. This opportunity should not be missed. The alternative would be a protracted conflict and a looming threat of nuclear proliferation that, while emanating from the Middle East, would effectively erode the NPT and the non-proliferation regime as a whole.' He said that for the second time in three years, the world is witnessing a dramatic conflict between two UN and IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue is needed. 'The IAEA must receive timely and regular technical information about affected nuclear facilities and their respective sites,' he said, and urged Iranian regulatory authorities to continue a constructive dialogue with the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre which has been operating 24/7 since the beginning of this conflict. UNI RB RN
Scroll.in
37 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
The paradox of English: It is both a foreign tongue and a deeply embedded Indian language
Alongside their offensive against Urdu, India's language nationalists appear to have turned their ire on English. That is what one could conclude from the declaration by Union Home Minister Amit Shah at a book launch in New Delhi on Thursday, when he predicted that 'soon a time would come when those speaking English will feel ashamed'. 'In our lifetime, we will see a society in which those speaking English will feel ashamed, that day is not far,' he said. 'I believe that the languages of our country are the ornament of our culture. Without them, we would not have been Bharatiya. Our country, its history, its culture, our dharma – if these have to be understood, it cannot be done in foreign languages.' Shah's statement quickly sparked a political backlash. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, countered forcefully: 'English is not a dam, it is a bridge. English is not shameful, it is empowering. English is not a chain – it is a tool to break the chains.' Other opposition figures, including Trinamool Congress leaders Derek O'Brien and Sagarika Ghose, echoed this sentiment, slamming the home minister for what they saw as a regressive and divisive stance. Echoes of Mulayam Singh Shah's remarks recall a moment 35 years ago when Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, launched his own crusade against English. In May 1990, Yadav infamously declared English to be 'the language of foreigners and the elite', blaming it for perpetuating socio-economic disparity and cultivating feelings of inferiority among non-English speakers. His one-point mission: Angrezi hatao. Banish English. In a curious twist, Yadav, a self-declared supporter of Urdu urged Urdu-speaking communities to unite with Hindi speakers to oppose English. Urdu, having only recently been granted official status as Uttar Pradesh's second language, was now being weaponised against a new linguistic rival. This contradiction is not out of character for Indian politics, where language often becomes a proxy for identity, power and culture. The disdain for English in some Indian political circles can be traced back to the 1950s and '60s, to socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia and even earlier, to Mohandas Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. Gandhi viewed English as an alien imposition that had displaced indigenous languages from their rightful place in Indian society. At Independence, the Indian Constitution made Hindi the official language, but allowed English to continue for a transitional period of 15 years. This compromise was pragmatic, not sentimental. English was seen as a necessary link language in a culturally and linguistically diverse nation. However, the efforts to impose Hindi on South India in the 1960s sparked widespread resistance and deepened the North-South linguistic divide. Even today, English continues to be viewed by many as a colonial vestige, despite its extensive indigenisation. The Lohia doctrine Lohia considered English to be not just a colonial leftover, but a barrier to original thought and mass education. He argued that true educational reform and people-oriented governance were possible only if conducted in the people's languages. Recognising India's cultural diversity, Lohia made exceptions for South Indian states, allowing them to retain English for inter-state and central communication for 50 years. However, his nuanced vision was distorted by his followers. The anti-English frenzy gained renewed vigour in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, leading to draconian steps like removing English from school curricula altogether. In Bihar in the 1970s, Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur reduced English to an optional subject, resulting in a generation of students branded as the 'Karpoori class' – matriculates without English proficiency. Mulayam Singh Yadav resurrected the campaign in the 1990s, giving it a political legitimacy that had long-lasting social consequences. Misplaced stereotypes Yadav's campaign also triggered unwarranted attacks on Christian institutions, which were accused of using English as a tool for religious conversion and elitist education. This conflation of English with Christianity mirrors the equally irrational equation in the Hindi heartland of Urdu with Islam. Such logic ignores the complex realities of Indian linguistic identity. English may have arrived with colonial Christians, but it soon became a key vehicle for political awakening and nation-building. It was through English that India's founding leaders – from Raja Rammohun Roy to Nehru – engaged with global currents of nationalism, democracy, liberty and modernity. The same language, intended by the British to produce obedient clerks, ended up producing freedom fighters, thinkers and reformers who led India's struggle for independence. More Indian than foreign? Despite its origins, English in India has long shed its colonial skin. It is the medium of scientific advancement, legal systems, administrative governance and higher education. It has played a vital role in the country's post-Independence progress – particularly in the globalisation era. Ironically, many politicians who publicly denounce English still prefer to send their children to English-medium schools. Even in the Hindi heartland, English remains a key administrative language. Today, English enjoys a paradoxical status: both a foreign tongue and a deeply embedded Indian language. English is also the mother tongue of the Anglo Indian community, a recognised minority in India, and serves as an official language in states like Nagaland. As globalisation continues to shape India's economic and cultural landscape, English remains the country's primary interface with the world. To treat it as a threat to Indian identity is to ignore the multifaceted reality of modern India. Language should be a medium of unity, not a tool of discord. English, like all Indian languages, must be valued for its integrative potential, not vilified for its past. The country does not need another round of linguistic chauvinism. Instead, India should recognise the multilingual richness of English – and the maturity to embrace it.
Hindustan Times
39 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
American B-2 stealth bombers head to Guam: Will US use GBU-57 on Iran's nuclear sites before Trump's announcement?
The United States has deployed B-2 Spirit stealth bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to a strategic airbase in Guam, according to a Jerusalem Post report. The deployment came amid escalating tensions in the Middle East following recent Israeli airstrikes on Iran. The move has also raised concerns about a potential US involvement in Iran, as President Donald Trump will soon announce his decision regarding the Iran-Israel conflict. Donald Trump would make his decision regarding a possible strike on Iran in two weeks, White House said. The deployment came days after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that the US military was ready to carry out any decision President Donald Trump makes regarding Iran. President Trump recently stated that Iran had missed its opportunity to negotiate before Israeli strikes began. He reportedly has issued a two-week deadline to Tehran to reach a deal. Also Read: Israel-Iran conflict: World War III memes go viral as Trump mulls intervention Israel has also stated that it struck 'at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme,' Eurasian Times reported. However, it does not have the capability to completely destroy Iran's nuclear program. Israel needs American help to hit Iran's Fordow nuclear plant, the report claimed. The facility is the most heavily fortified nuclear site in Iran and is situated deep inside a mountain. An American-made bunker-busting bomb is the only way the facility can be damaged. The GBU-57, a bomb buster that can break through more than 200 feet of strong concrete is among the capabilities that the B-2 can carry, the Jerusalem Post report added. The 30,000-pound warhead, also named Massive Ordnance Penetrator, can only be deployed on the B-2 bomber. The deployment of the stealth fighters to Guam has ignited concerns about whether the US could strike Fordow. On Friday, the White House said that Trump would make his decision regarding a possible strike on Iran in two weeks. B-2's stealth and strike capabilities The B-2 Spirit, manufactured by Northrop Grumman, can carry both regular and nuclear weapons while staying under the radar, due to its stealthy design. Each B-2 costs about $2.1 billion making it the priciest military plane, the report stated. Only 21 of them were ever built because of budget cuts after the Cold War with one lost in a 2008 crash at Guam. With a flying range of over 6,000 nautical miles non-stop, and the ability to refuel in the air, the B-2 can hit heavily fortified targets like nuclear sites. It can carry up to 40,000 pounds of bombs, including the GBU-57A/B. The bomber can reportedly carry other types of bombs, like JDAMs, JSOWs, and JASSMs, which makes it useful for different kinds of missions. It is a vital part of America's nuclear defense, able to hold up to 16 B83 nuclear bombs. With its tech that helps it dodge radar, low visibility, and a two-person crew, the B-2 is designed for sneaky, safe, and flexible missions, making it a key player in the Pacific. FAQs Q: What caused the B-2 crash in Guam? A: A B-2 bomber crash in Guam in 2008 was caused by moisture in the aircraft's sensors, leading to faulty airspeed readings and a subsequent stall shortly after takeoff. No fatalities occurred. Q: How many B-2 stealth bombers does the US have? A: The United States Air Force currently has 20 B-2 Spirit bombers in its active fleet, with one previously lost in the 2008 Guam crash. Q: Are there B-2 bombers in Guam? A: While not permanently stationed, B-2 bombers are periodically deployed to Guam as part of the US Indo-Pacific Command's bomber rotation. Q: How much is a B-2 stealth bomber worth? A: Each B-2 Spirit costs approximately $2.1 billion, including development, making it the most expensive aircraft ever built.
