Remembering the Victims of Chemical Warfare

More than a century after the first poisonous clouds floated across the trenches of World War I, chemical warfare remains one of humanity’s darkest inventions. The effects of chemical warfare on humanity have shaped several countries’ military doctrines, foreign policy, and international treaties, yet it persists in several countries. The logic behind chemical weapons has always been chilling: they are cheap to produce, devastating in effect, and capable of bypassing conventional defences. Unlike nuclear arms, which demand complex infrastructure and advanced technology, chemical agents can be synthesised from dual-use materials found in pharmaceutical factories or university laboratories. That makes them dangerously accessible, not only to rogue states but also to non-state actors, terror groups, extremist networks, and even lone individuals. For example, a small quantity of nerve agent such as sarin or VX can kill hundreds within minutes. As with cyber tools or drone technologies, power is shifting from large states to agile actors. The threat is evolving quietly: chemical weapons do not dominate headlines, nor do they drive political debates, yet they are still manufactured, transported, stored and, most alarmingly, used.

History shows that every time the world believes it has “moved beyond” chemical warfare, reality proves otherwise. The 193 signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) vowed to end the development, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. But the past decades alone show multiple violations: chemical attacks during Syria’s civil war, nerve-agent poisonings linked to state actors, and targeted assassinations, from the Tokyo subway in 1995 to Salisbury, England in 2018. IN some cases, terrorists use available chemicals in the market to make bombs. The line between battlefield weapons and covert operations has blurred. Chemical warfare has not disappeared; it has adapted.

More than a hundred years ago, the horrors of World War I led to global outrage, as thousands died or suffered irreversible injury from poison gas. It was in this response that countries began signing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, banning the use of chemical weapons in war. That was meant to be the start of a safer world. A century later, the promise remains unfulfilled. Last week, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, while remembering November 30, the Day of Remembrance for All Victims of Chemical Warfare in his message, has urged governments to reaffirm their commitment to total prohibition, reminding them that peace requires constant vigilance. This was not ceremonial rhetoric; it was a wake-up call. The danger still exists and may even be growing. Chemical weapons are not ordinary instruments of war. They are designed to punish entire populations. They choke lungs, impair cognitive functions, burn skin and contaminate land for years. Civilians often suffer the most. including children, the elderly and first responders. These chemical weapons violate the basic rules of warfare. As believed, even in conflict, there must be limits, but it hardly happens. This moral understanding led to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which came into force in 1997. Today, 193 nations, including India, are bound by it. But treaties are only as strong as political will. Compliance still relies heavily on trust, self-reporting, and limited inspections.

India’s strong record and untapped potential

India rarely draws attention to its role in this domain, yet its record is among the strongest. It signed the CWC in 1993, passed the Chemical Weapons Convention Act in 2000 to enforce it domestically, and crucially, became the first country to destroy all of its declared chemical weapon stockpiles. India’s moral credibility, diplomatic standing continue to remain high globally. India’s growing technology and scientific strengths make them an automatic leader. In the past, India’s stance has been practical. In 2024, the National Authority for Chemical Weapons Convention (NACWC) mentored Kenya’s national agency, helping it implement treaty obligations. The Indian Chemical Council became the world’s first industry body to receive the OPCW–The Hague Award, demonstrating that chemical safety is not just a matter of defence, but of responsible industry. In July this year, India hosted 24 Asian countries in New Delhi for a regional consultation on chemical safety and security. Delegates discussed emerging threats such as artificial intelligence misuse, inspection challenges, and gaps in enforcement capacity, especially among smaller developing nations. India showed that it is not only following rules but shaping them.

What India can do next

India has the scientific capability, diplomatic credibility, and moral standing to lead a renewed global effort. It could propose an international coalition using AI and data analytics to detect illicit chemical activities, mentor developing countries in drafting chemical safety regulations and training scientists, champion a stronger UN protocol explicitly addressing chemical weapons used by non-state actors and terrorists, and expand chemical safety education across universities, industries and medical institutions. India’s growing leadership role and trust in the Global South and smaller countries make it a natural bridge between advanced powers and developing nations. New Delhi increasingly enjoys trust among smaller states and seeks a place at the world’s high tables, including the UN Security Council. A stronger global framework against chemical warfare could be India’s defining diplomatic contribution.

With much advancement of technology and artificial intelligence, the world’s response is not keeping pace with the change. The CWC depends heavily on voluntary declarations and limited inspections. Scientific advances are creating grey zones, particularly in biology and synthetic chemistry. What exactly counts as a weapon? Who monitors “dual-use” research? Should labs capable of producing life-saving compounds also be allowed to produce weaponised toxins? And if not, who decides? Who checks them?  These questions demand urgent answers and checks. The line between science and warfare is dissolving. If regulation does not keep pace, deterrence may collapse.

The missing pillar is civilian preparedness

Perhaps the most dangerous gap lies in civilian preparedness. In most countries, training for chemical emergencies including factory or laboratory leaks is limited to specialised forces or medical professionals. Yet chemical attacks rarely announce themselves. Victims first cough, then struggle to breathe, then collapse. Diagnosis often becomes guesswork. there was so much of desperation, confusion and panic during Syria’s conflict that medical workers resorted to use vinegar and improvised masks,  in emergency and in the absence of proper equipment. Large cities conduct drills for cyberattacks or natural disasters but hardly ever for chemical threats. That is an alarming oversight. Chemical warfare is not confined to battlefields. Its potential targets include subway networks, public rallies, hospitals, airports even border checkpoints. Chemical threats must be treated as both military and public health challenges. The bigger risk is if chemical weapons become tolerated as a “grey zone” rather than a red line, global norms will collapse. History shows that once a weapon is used without consequences, it is used again, more often, and more ruthlessly. Sanctions, diplomatic condemnation, and temporary pressure have proved insufficient. For deterrence, more and stricter work needs to be done.

In India, three responsible steps are essential for action: Intelligence coordination, specialised units must track chemical threats across borders, industries, private dealers, and emerging technologies. Secondly, upgraded emergency medical infrastructures, like hospitals, health centres, and first responders, must be equipped to rapidly detect and treat chemical exposure. Lastly, basic public preparedness. Civilians must be trained in simple response actions, just as they are for fire or earthquake drills.

Chemical warfare exposes a painful truth: it can go into the wrong hands. A discovery made in scientific curiosity and for benefit can become a threat in the wrong hands. Despite global agreements and treaties, the threat continues amid a fragile era of geopolitical tension and rapid technological change. The UN has urged the world to reaffirm its commitment. But reaffirmation alone will not be sufficient. What is required is an updated, enforceable, technology-aware global pact, one that recognises new risks and establishes real accountability. India, with its credibility, scientific capacity and diplomatic leverage, is well-positioned to help craft that future. A century ago, the world said “never again.” It is time to ensure those words finally mean something. The world must again confront this danger with urgency and clarity. Not because it happened yesterday, but because it could happen tomorrow, anywhere, without warning.

Surinder Singh Oberoi,

National Editor Greater Kashmir