In 1968 the signatories to the NPT agreed to nonproliferation and disarmament alongside the right to peacefully use nuclear technology None of the 5 recognised nuclear powers ( the UN Security Council permanent members ) disarmed or made any serious attempt to do so, although they have used it as a pretext for military action. And they continue to do so, quite openly hypocritical.

Iran signed it and is not in breach.
The US signed it and is in breach both for not disarming and for proliferation.
India never even signed it but would definitely be in breach if it had.

It also marks a significant mark in global politics, an abandonment of the US regional policy of treating Pakistan and India equally, effectively an alliance with India. Pakistan will be forced into a similar tacit alliance with China, effectively setting the stage for the end of this 'phoney war' 'war on terrorism'. The long war that US planners refer to is not likely to remain low intensity conflict for long. Remember Blair just recently going to make peace between India and Pakistan while in reality just selling more British arms to both sides ? We have a limited time period to overthrow these war-mongers and make real peace. Any slight incident from Taiwan to Kashmir to Tehrann now implies total war - total incineration.
My generation used to fear that before the wall came down in 1990 and we began talking about the peace dividend.

The director of the IAEA disagrees with my analysis, in public at least, but then since Hans Blixs slight rebuke and recrimination of USuk undermining of the UN pre-Iraq I can't really take any 'Directors' seriously. They are stooges, fools or impotent charlatans.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei - "This agreement is an important step towards satisfying India´s growing need for energy, including nuclear technology and fuel, as an engine for development. It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the non-proliferation regime," he said. "It would be a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety."
"The agreement would assure India of reliable access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel. It would also be a step forward towards universalisation of the international safeguards regime," Dr. ElBaradei said. "This agreement would serve the interests of both India and the international community."


 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060303/NEWS07/603030313/1009

"With this agreement, we're basically saying that India can do something that Iran can't do," said William Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, a policy study group in Monterey, Calif., and a former consultant to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. "It's very damaging for nonproliferation efforts to have this double standard." Thursday's deal would make India eligible to buy U.S. nuclear technology and fuel from U.S. companies such as General Electric Co., the world's biggest maker of power-generation equipment. It also marks India's arrival on the world stage and acts as a counterweight to China's growing power, proponents say.


 http://news.ft.com/cms/s/586be162-aad5-11da-8a68-0000779e2340.html

Edward J. Markey, co-chair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation and senior Democrat on the House energy and commerce committee, claimed the administration had in effect scrapped the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “The ink on this agreement has barely dried and already Pakistan is asking for the very same special treaty Bush has carved out for India,” Mr Markey said. “It empowers hawks in every rogue nation to put nuclear weapons plans on steroids.” The US administration has indicated it has no intention of working towards a similar deal for Pakistan, whose record on non-proliferation was gravely tarnished by the clandestine “nuclear Wal-Mart” run by A. Q. Khan, its top nuclear scientist. “Pakistan is not in the same place as India,” Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, said this week. “We have programmes and relationships with Pakistan that would not be appropriate with India, and vice versa.” However, a foreign ministry official in Islamabad said the US-India deal opened the door for Pakistan to seek a similar deal for the supply of further nuclear energy reactors from China, which has already supplied one and promised a second. “There is now a precedent that Pakistan can try to follow for seeking nuclear power reactors from other countries,” said Shireen Mazari, the head of the Islamabad-based and government-funded Institute for Strategic Studies. Ending India’s so-called “hyphenation” with Pakistan has been a long-standing goal of an Indian strategic elite convinced that US military and economic support for Pakistan has bogged it down in sub-regional conflict and delayed its arrival on the world stage.

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei called the deal "a step forward towards universalization of the international safeguards regime." The accord, however, excluded important parts of India's nuclear program from safeguards. Eight reactors wouldn't be covered by the safeguards and could remain sources of plutonium for weapons. The facilities include several civilian power plants and a fast-breeder reactor that will produce large amounts of plutonium. While many details of the agreement weren't disclosed, experts said that safeguards also wouldn't cover existing spent reactor fuel, which contains enough plutonium for more than 1,000 weapons, and a facility for enriching uranium, which also can be used to make nuclear weapons. "The bottom line is that this deal would allow India to significantly increase its nuclear weapons arsenal and provides precious little safeguarding," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "This is a nonproliferation nothing-burger, and Congress will see it as that if they look carefully." India has an estimated 50 to 60 nuclear warheads, according to a September report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S. arms-control group.