Plus, India has a no first use policy. So it's not like India will threaten other countries with nuclear consequences in case of war like situations. This makes India's approach to nuclear weapons safer, IMO.

Of course, such policies can be changed whenever India would want to.

It is also worth noting that there's a big difference in enrichment plants for power plants vs enrichment plants for weapons grade material (this was a big part of the Iran deal). That being said, it isn't like you can't make a weapon out from the power grade enrichment plants, but it is substantially harder. It is even harder if you're being watched (by say... the US or Russia).

> The treaty essentially states that only 5 countries (US, UK, France, China, Russia) can have nuclear weapons. India says this is discriminatory: either all countries denuclearize or other countries can develop nuclear weapons.

Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise, and also to assist with civilian power efforts.

> Part of the treaty is that those 5 are supposed to (gradually) denuclearise

and how is that going for the big players since the treaty was singed ?

Nuclear arsenals are a fraction of their former size, and "battlefield" nuclear weapons have been almost entirely eliminated. But no-one has signed up to take the final step down to zero.

yeah, agree with you on arsenal sizes going down.

As much as I would like nuclear weapons gone, I don't see it as being done to a satisfactory level that assuages India's concerns. I don't think anyone has made a real commitment to denuclearizing, akin to what South Africa did a while ago.