Well hopefully You can prove it somehow?
The Arjun MK1 ammo storage consists of individual ballistic steel cases with individual containerization of each ammunition piece. The turret block holding ammo, is actually given new locking handles to keep the caps (plus rounds within) in place. Each round has to be individually opened up with the lock released, and then removed. Though in trials, I was told, since only a few rounds are carried in the turret, and nobody's shooting back, they don't use the caps and just take the rounds in the empty turret rack, with the locking handle effective even against the steel obturator base cap, to keep the round in place.
The turret ammunition box extends further into the bustle which has blow off panels emplaced above it. The designers when asked about how this works did not reply in depth because of the presence of army personnel who were not keen on the Arjun features being described to the public. This was in 2007, when things were still a bit restrictive when it came to the Arjun as it had not then finished development, and aced the T-90. Things are better now. I would never have imagined a day when the public would be allowed to crawl all over the tank.
However, the concept as mentioned is the same as in the Merkava, which actually uses boxes in earlier variants, composite ones to prevent flame effects. The Arjun designers preferred ballistic steel + IFDSS. The cases have been designed to protect against slag/shrapnel and penetration after effects, and have been tested. The designers also looked into various other methods, including wet stowage, box storage etc - and finally chose this one, as a good cost effective method. Apparently, the automated bin system on the Abrams could have been both expensive, and mechanically complex (an additional point of failure). I read this more as design conservatism as at the time, the Arjun was already being accused by T-series supporters in the Army of being too western (read complex, and hence liable to fail without finicky maintenance).
The Arjun, like most other tanks do nowadays, also has an IFDSS (fire suppression system as well).
The basic aim of the armoured protection for each round (each of which is separated from the other) is to prevent a quick sympathetic detonation. If one round cooks off, then the others don't, not in such a fast period of time, that they take the crew with them.
Anyways, the MK1 is regarded as significantly safer than the T-72 storage by army personnel at a public event. They have had instances in the T-72 where shell tears meant burning fragments down the hoist into the carousel and the tank brewed up. Plus the open, exposed rounds all around the tank. I hope the T-90 is better, but I have read nothing to indicate the Indian ones are any different.
In MK2, the entire turret ammo, because apparently the Army is now ok with the concept and is not averse to the Arjun getting more and more fancy "western style stuff", is walled off, Abrams style behind an armoured bulkhead or at least that is the plan. How they implement it - eg Merk style rotating storage behind the bustle - we don't know yet. This should be even safer than the current bin system.
Production quality has also improved by leaps and bounds in the MK1 over the initial OFB prototypes, they were very sloppily finished within, and DRDO engineers with the tank were noticeably dismayed at the lack of effort/care.
The big issue is cooling. The DRDO had developed its own cool suits for the Arjun crew but were even evaluating a supposedly more compact system developed by an Indian entrepreneur. It is this aspect, which would really be worth its weight in gold to the Indian armour. The temperature inside the tanks at summer, in the Thar is horrible. And the Russian tanks, cramped - even more so. Its a very bad situation. Especially as in unlike previous conflicts, with the nuclear angle in mind, troops may have to operate buttoned up. If so...very hard.
