Twenty years after the Reykjavik Summit, a group of scholars convened to examine the progress that had been made since the meeting between the disarmament pioneers - Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. The participants recognized that in addition to the failure of the world to eliminate nuclear weapons, very little progress had been made towards achieving this vision. Focusing on the best ways to manage and reduce the size of nuclear programs, as well as the importance of diplomacy in achieving these objectives; participants sought to determine how best to apply the vision of these leaders to today's context.

Six months after the meeting, a group of former US statesmen, now affectionately referred to as the "Quartet," drafted a plan of action for the world to use, as it moves towards the goal of "a world free of nuclear weapons." Using the meeting's suggestions as a blueprint, they argued that in order to achieve this objective, it crucial to increase the warning time for nuclear weapons to prevent unintended use; seek to further reduce the size of nuclear arsenals in nuclear-weapon states; work to remove forward-deployed short range weapons; ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); increase security for nuclear weapons and at nuclear facilities; better management of, the uranium enrichment process; cease the production of fissile material intended for nuclear weapons; and work to solve regional disputes that could lead to the emergence of new nuclear powers.

The aforementioned efforts were redoubled the next year. At the second conference on nuclear disarmament, participants examined their original prescription in finer detail and the authors of the aforementioned article - George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn - picked up where they left off in a second op-ed. In the second article, the authors again reported the consensus of the conference; this time, arguing that a two-pronged approach was necessary. For the Quartet it is crucial for both Russia and the United States to lead the way forward and for other, nuclear and non-nuclear states to contribute as part of an international disarmament campaign. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to this call and, in less than a year, the disarmament discussion went global. At a conference held in Norway, governments and international organizations chimed in what had previously been a discussion held by academics, NGOs and former officials.

This nonproliferation initiative has gained unprecedented ground. Perhaps, the reason for this, as stated by United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte, is that "the world has, at long last, reached a point where such a dialogue can take place." But, one must ask if this is another example of a plan that is seemingly full of action, but, in reality, all talk. Or, maybe, just talk from just one side. When examining the previous events, three nuclear powers have been noticeably absent, India, Pakistan and China. This is problematic as each of these states will certainly have major parts to play if the world moves toward a nuclear-free world.

Although the discussion recently moved eastward, with a conference held in Delhi by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and The Indian Council for World Affairs on the subject, there was still a problem: India was the only non-western nuclear state represented. Perhaps this was neither the time nor place to include other members of the Asian triangle, given the commemoration of the late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's inspirational push towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. But, this does not mean that future initiatives should be country-specific. In fact, India should take the lead on this issue, as it has done many times before, and incorporate regional concerns into the global debate.

In a recent address, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated India's commitment to "global, universal and non-discriminatory" nuclear disarmament. Echoing the arguments of the Quartet's Wall Street Journal article, he explained that such parameters are necessary for such a plan to be successful, as "nuclear weapons know no boundaries." Given the reflection of India's intentions in the international initiative, it should take the opportunity to discuss this issue with China and Pakistan, in order to determine whether such a plan is feasible in the region. Further, this would provide the nuclear states with an opportunity to address a number of salient issues; including but not exclusive to: whether global disarmament will lead to proliferation after the arsenals of today are destroyed; whether some countries will simply refuse to give up their atomic arsenals as they believe they provide additional protection against threats, real or perceived; and finally, whether the atom's prestige will prevent this vision from becoming a reality.

It may be true that once that atomic box was opened, it could never be shut and nuclear disarmament is just a dream. But, today, India has a unique opportunity to lead the way to make it a reality.