India, Pakistan exchange list of nuclear installations amid strained ties: Here's why this practice matters
India and Pakistan have exchanged their annual list of nuclear installations for the 35th consecutive year under a pact that prohibits attacks on each other's atomic facilities. The exchange took place despite deep tensions and recent hostilities between the two countries.
In a continuation of a practice that has now crossed three decades, India and Pakistan on Thursday exchanged their annual list of nuclear installations under a bilateral pact that bars either side from striking the other's atomic facilities. This routine but significant exchange came at a time when relations remain severely strained following the four-day military hostilities in May 2025 after the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam.
According to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the process was conducted simultaneously through diplomatic channels in New Delhi and Islamabad. "India and Pakistan today exchanged, through diplomatic channels, simultaneously at New Delhi and Islamabad, the list of nuclear installations and facilities, covered under the agreement on the prohibition of attack against nuclear installations and facilities between India and Pakistan," the MEA noted.
A three-decade-old nuclear safety arrangement
The pact, signed on December 31, 1988 and operational since January 27, 1991, requires both countries to share these lists every year on January 1. The MEA highlighted that this was the 35th uninterrupted exchange since the first one on January 1, 1992. Over the years, the agreement has endured despite wars, terror attacks and major diplomatic breakdowns.
The agreement covers a broad spectrum of nuclear facilities including power plants, research reactors, fuel fabrication units, enrichment facilities, isotope separation plants, reprocessing units and storage sites containing large quantities of radioactive materials. These facilities are usually listed along with their geographical coordinates to ensure clarity and prevent ambiguity.
Why the annual exchange matters
Security experts view this yearly ritual as a vital confidence-building measure that helps prevent accidental or escalatory strikes during crises. By officially listing sensitive nuclear locations, both sides aim to reduce the risks of miscalculation during high-tension military situations. Even a conventional attack on a nuclear site can trigger catastrophic environmental and humanitarian fallout, making this exchange central to nuclear risk management in South Asia. Significantly, the process has continued even during some of the most tense chapters in bilateral history such as the Kargil conflict, the 2001 to 2002 mobilisation, the 2016 Uri attack and the 2019 Pulwama attack followed by the Balakot air strikes.
Historical roots of the agreement
The pact originated in the late 1980s when both India and Pakistan were edging toward overt nuclear capabilities but had not yet conducted their 1998 nuclear tests. Concerns about pre-emptive strikes or sabotage of nuclear infrastructure played a major role in shaping the negotiations. The agreement was among the earliest formal nuclear Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) between the neighbours and has survived despite the absence of broader progress on arms control.
Limitations that still concern analysts
Although the pact prohibits attacks on nuclear installations, it does not limit nuclear weapons development or deployment. There are also no independent verification mechanisms beyond the annual list exchange. The agreement does not include missile bases, command and control sites or other strategic nuclear assets. Still, the consistent adherence to this agreement by both sides reflects a mutual understanding of the enormous risks posed by any strike, even unintentional, on nuclear facilities. More than three decades later, the pact remains a rare example of enduring nuclear risk reduction in an otherwise volatile geopolitical environment.
ALSO READ: India, Pakistan likely to engage in conflict in 2026, warns US think tank; cites 'terror activities'