Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assertion that the final legislation on Indo-US nuclear deal must conform strictly to the July 18, 2005 agreement has set the ball in the US Senate's court, a scholar at a premier think tank has said.
'The ball has now been placed in the US Senate's court. It is up to the US Senate to decide how seriously it wants to take the demands of the Indian government, Anirudh Suri, a Junior Fellow in the South Asia Programme of Washington-based Carnegie Endowment said.
'The importance accorded by Singh to the concerns of other Parliamentarians and the scientific community and the categorical stances taken in his speeches will necessitate playing hard ball with the US,' Suri said in his article titled 'All Eyes on the Senate as India Plays Hardball'.
The Senate, which will come from its summer recess on September 5 is expected to shortly thereafter take up the civilian nuclear deal.
Analysts believe that the deal per se will not be facing much of a trouble at the Senate, but that the real work will be at the conference stage between the Senate and the House where differences in substance and language will have to be hammered out.
The Bush Administration has said that it will work at the conference stage to ensure that the final legislation is within the parameters of what President George W Bush and Singh agreed in July 2005.
'Singh has put himself in a good position for now, having addressed domestic concerns by sending a loud and clear message to the US that India will not go beyond what has already been agreed upon,' Suri said in the his latest scholarly presentation.
'Singh has admitted that he cannot predict with certainty the final form of the US legislation or the outcome of the process with the NSG, which consists of 45 countries with divergent views,' he said.
Suri, however, said Singh remained ambiguous about India's plan of action in the event that the final version of the US legislation or the guidelines imposed by the NSG placed extraneous conditions.
'On the part of the US Senate, the worsening situation vis-à-vis Iran and its belligerence on nuclear issues might induce the Senate to not push a key potential ally away at such a time.
Furthermore, the Bush administration will be pushing vigorously for the Bill to go through in a mutually acceptable form. Lobbyists in favour of the deal emphasise the importance of improving economic and political ties with a rapidly growing India,' Suri said.
'At the same time, others continue to believe that the US is offering India everything on a silver platter without getting any concrete assurances or any tangible benefits in return. It will be this constituency that will have to be convinced if the deal is to go through in a mutually acceptable form,' he said.
One of the things that the Carnegie article points out is that Singh's 'firm stance and confidence' that the US would do its utmost to recognise and accommodate Indian demands seemed to be based on an assurance from the US President that the parameters of the scope of cooperation would be those contained in the July 2005 Joint Statement and the March 2006 separation plan.
'Thus, Singh concluded that two things were clear: one, there was no ambiguity in our position in so far as it has been conveyed to the US and two, the Bush administration had clearly recognised these concerns and voiced them with the US Congress,' Suri notes.
'In case the US legislation does indeed take a form similar to the one that was passed by the House of Representatives, then the Indian government might be forced to reconsider the deal.
'At the same India has demonstrated that it remains fully committed to the deal and to improved relations with the United States,' he said.
'Singh has said that the civilian nuclear would contribute greatly to India's energy security in the future by helping increase nuclear power production as well as enhance the development of India's high-tech sectors through the promised dismantling of the technology denial regimes, Suri said in his article.