Yes, the NPT is heavily flawed in that it sets no deadlines for disarmament whatsoever, it allows for weapons-related nuclear infrastructure & expertise, and under the Treaty India is a non-weapons state.

Yet we have a Chemical Weapons Convention, a Biological Weapons Convention and a Mine Ban Treaty.

The world needs a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

http://www.icanw.org/

... as well as a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). And the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) must be ratified, non the least by India and the USA.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

“We know very well what we would do if we signed such a
convention: We would not make atomic weapons, at least not
to start with, but we would build enormous plants, and we
would design these plants in such a way that they could be
converted with the maximum ease and the minimum time de-
lay to the production of atomic weapons saying, this is just in
case somebody two-times us; we would stockpile uranium; we
would keep as many of our developments secret as possible;
we would locate our plants, not where they would do the most
good for the production of power, but where they would do
the most good for protection against enemy attack.”

- Robert Oppenheimer, 1946 on a possible convention banning nuclear weapons.

>a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). And the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

These are fraudulent treaties, designed to hoodwink the unwashed masses while maintaining the military superiority of a select few states, allowing them the freedom to wage aggressive war. People have been led to believe that these treaties make the world safer.

If you believe in disarmament, just one treaty is enough... one that outlaws the possession of nuclear weapons. All weapons should be destroyed in a set time period, say 5 years.

No need for a test ban treaty if there is nothing to test. No need for fissile cutoff since all fissile material becomes civilian... every last gram.

No NPT either... nothing to proliferate.. no "Nuclear Weapon States"
No "Non Nuclear Weapon States"

Of course this will never happen ... the anti-nuclear crowd really backs selective possession of nuclear weapons.. their hands are clean while they shelter under the nuclear apron strings of other states..

Hypocrites all...

Thanks John (not) for generalising and calling us all "hypocrites". I agree with you ("All weapons should be destroyed in a set time period") and this is a major failing of the NPT, as is the fact that many nations including India are defined as non-weapons states. Yes, arms reduction is not disarmament.
A Nuclear Weapons Convention is, however, very achievable and thus seen as part of the process.
A NWC would
- Define terms
- Outline a series of 5 phases for elimination of nuclear weapons beginning with de-alert status
- Create rules for undestanding prohibition
- Establish a schedule for reducing the threat via dismantlement
- Outline patterns of behaviour & cooperation
- Establish verification measures.

Also, we all can boycott the many common name companies which design, build, test, store, maintain and fuel such weapons & delivery systems - and tell them so.

http://www.icanw.org
http://www.votenuclearfree.net

Aside from the vague undercurrent of racism through the article, there are a number of problems within it.

First of all, the writer acknowledges that India’s domestic Uranium is too limited to produce weapons AND operate civilian reactor, yet doesn’t seem to realize that by importing Uranium, Australia would be assisting in freeing up the limited domestic supplies for non-peaceful purposes.

Secondly, those who argue that the NPT is irrelevant create a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you continue to disregard it and flout its rules then of course it will be irrelevant and achieve nothing. By selling uranium to India the government is actively undermining the NPT and non-proliferation more generally. The NPT did not have any sanctions, but it contained the bargain, that if a state agrees to abstain from obtaining nuclear weapons, then they can have access to nuclear technology and materials, for strictly peaceful purposes. Anyone see the link here?

The author also argues that because the NPT is inherently unequal, and provisions about permanent disarmament of the permanent five are not going to happen, then it is pointless. The NPT is designed to limit the number of states that possess the bomb, would the wuthor really prefer a world with no NPT, and 20 or 50 nuclear states?

The author readily criticizes Pakistan, but makes no acknowledgement of the links between India and Pakistan’s nuclear programs. By legitimizing Indian nuclear weapons, you are effectively ensuring the Pakistani program also continues, as Pakistan possesses a nuclear arsenal in response in India. I doubt the Author would be so overjoyed about propping up and sustaining the Pakistani nuclear program, but that’s effectively what this deal will do.

The articles double standards are readily apparent, as the praise relished upon India is unfounded, especially when you consider that much like North Korea, India also suffers huge amounts of Poverty. Maybe a cut in nuclear program…

Actually India's Uranium reserves are too small for its massive electrical power needs period.
There is no choice between bombs and electricity. It simply doesn't have enough for electricty.
It does however have far more than it would ever need for bombs.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf

http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf

Look up the estimates done by Arun Sharma on the amount of Uranium mined in India and that required for electrical production. There is an awful lot of missing yellowcake there. It could only have disappeared as low burnup fuel (weapons grade production) in approximately 1/8 of the cores of several CANDU reactors. India has far more weapons grade Plutonium than previously estimated.
Its stockpile of unsafeguarded reactor grade Pu is also huge - enough for thousands of nuclear weapons if it choose to build them.

What it lacks is Uranium for electricty.
The choice isn't bomb or electricity. It is coal or uranium.

India will either use imported Uranium or burn several million tons more coal every year to produce electricity.