Dr Palit's article places too much reliance on the single issue of Rudd's reversal of Howard's 'landmark decision' to sell uranium to India. "There is no doubt that for engagements to grow deeper much more than intentions are necessary," he says.

Setting aside that issue, there's not much evidence in support of his thesis that Australia's relationship with India is developing too slowly. And lots of evidence to the contrary.

Dr Palit is aware that the Indian Diaspora in Australia is a quarter of a million. Foreign Minister Smith commented recently that this growing diaspora makes a significant contribution to bilateral links. Smith and India’s Pranab Mukherjee agreed a number of proposals for inter-country youth exchanges.

India is already Australia's third largest source of international immigrants and second largest source of skilled migrants and international students.

In 2004-05 only 10,000 Indian students studied in Australia compared with nearly 16,000 Chinese. The last figures (2006-07) showed India surpassing China as Australia's main source of overseas students - 28,949 Indians and 24,915 Chinese. That's an increase of nearly 30% for Indian students in just three years. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/50students.htm

Dr Palit concedes that, during the year 2004-05, bilateral trade between our two countries reached "a record A$7.25 billion". Had he looked at more recent figures, he would have seen even more tremendous growth since that record was set.

In 2007, bilateral trade reached $A10.75 billion. Exports from Australia to India grew by 5.4% - Australia is now India's 6th biggest provider of exports. We fall behind on imports from India ranking only 24th among her customers - but growth topped 14% for the year. http://www.dfat.gov.au/GEO/fs/inia.pdf
http://business.mapsofindia.com/trade-relations/india-australia/

So, after all, Dr Palit's gripe is essentially about uranium. His argument that "...Australia... continues to be influenced by Cold War considerations" is a very thin camouflage.

Arguments that George Bush thinks well of India as a rising nuclear weapons power cut little ice with me and many other Australians.

News item just in on ABC OnLine:

"Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says Australia and India respect each other's position on the sale of uranium.

"Mr Smith is in India for talks with the country's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and says Australia's refusal to sell uranium to India has been discussed.

"He says Australia's stance on the issue is not an obstacle to a good relationship.

"The Prime Minister told me that he understood and respected Australia's decision about uranium, which is Australia does not export uranium that's not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty," Mr Smith said.

"I told the Prime Minister that we understood and respected India's decision not to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"These are both long-standing positions and policy positions of the Australian and Indian governments."

So we assume that if India signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Australia would sell it uranium. So why won't India sign?

>>So why won't India sign?

Because it would have to disarm. It would then face a nuclear armed China without any nuclear deterrent of its own.

John Frum

You say India won't sign the non-proliferation because it would have to disarm. "It would then face a nuclear armed China without any nuclear deterrent of its own."

How do you arrive at this conclusion any more than to conclude that India would face USA, or UK or Russia or France? What would the other four do if any one of them attacked India?

The five NWS parties undertaken not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State.

Your supposition is totally without foundation.

Moreover, are you advocating the Australia act in breach of its own undertakings on nuclear weapons proliferation?

Spikey

You're too trusting of the NPT - but that is Rudd's policy in Australia right NOW.

Wait till the US Congress ratifies the US-India nuclear agreement (unfortunately probably next year) - we'll see how Rudd then permits Australia to supply uranium to India.

Those newer nuclear powers (mainly India, Pakistan and Israel) may care about their people too much to risk their people's lives to foreign agreements.

Pete

Spikey, are you aware that the Chinese army has made more than 80 incursions across the ceasefire line into Indian territory since January of this year?

Are you aware that China has recently reiterated its territorial claim to Aranuchal Pradesh, an entire Indian state? Or that is continues to occupy thousands of square kilometres of Indian territory captured in 1962?

Have you heard of the Nathu La and Sumdorong Chu Valley skirmishes?

Are you aware that the Chinese no first use pledge does not apply to Chinese territory? In other words, a war like the 1962 India-Chinese war might see China using tactical nuclear weapons on Indian soil (but what China considers its own territory).

Are you aware that India approached both the USA and the Soviet Union for nuclear security guarantees after 1962 but was turned down by both?

As for the NPT, nothing in that treaty prevents Australia from selling Uranium to India. The NPT simply requires that all sales be under IAEA safeguards. It does not require full scope safeguards for a non-state party to the treaty nor does it prohibit nuclear sales to a non-state party.