In the run-up to the United Nations General Assembly, the Indian delegation received a request from their American counterparts seeking a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush. As a result, within hours of touching down at JFK Airport in New York, the prime minister was closeted in a meeting with Bush. That done with, both leaders prepared for Bush's annual dinner rites-to which all heads of state, except those of Nepal, North Korea, Iran and Cuba are invited.

PICTURE SPEAK

GLOBAL PLAYER: Manmohan with Bush; (below) Ahmadinajed at the UN

It wasn't all pleasure though for the bureaucratic handlers, led by US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran. At the mid-town Greek restaurant, they had much more to talk about than just the merits and demerits of feta cheese.

Their discussions focused on the Iran nuclear imbroglio-in which India has been willy nilly involved-and progress on the Indo-US civilian nuclear energy deal worked out in July. Four hours later when the clock struck the midnight hour, the meeting broke up. Not because the discussions had concluded, only because the restaurant had to close shop.

But the frank discussions there partly cleared the air about the Indian stand on Iran's decision to resume its nuclear programme. However, it took an unprecedented three more rounds of meetings in less than a week-including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calling on Manmohan a day before his departure for India and a two-hour meeting between Rice and External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh-before the relationship was back on even keel. Manmohan clarified India's stand at a press conference on the final day: "We believe that another nuclear weapon state in our neighbourhood is not desirable. We also believe that Iran as a signatory to the npt must honour all its commitments." As for India's views on referring the Iran issue to the Security Council being raised in the US Congress, Manmohan said, "What we are saying is that diplomacy must be given the maximum possible scope to find a feasible solution to the issues and that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be given a chance to work out the conditions." North Korea's acquiescence on Monday to protracted and often frustrating rounds of dialogue bore out India's belief that diplomacy could bear fruit. Only to have Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's defiant speech in the UN jeopardising the diplomacy option and leaving it more isolated internationally. As one diplomat put it, "Even your best friend will be hard-pressed to explain his way out of this. The Iranians have simply walked into the American trap."

INTERVIEW | NICHOLAS BURNS

"We understand India's stand" A key administration figure defending the deal is Ambassador Nicholas Burns, the US under secretary of state for political affairs, the State Department's third-ranking official. He spoke to New York Bureau Chief Anil Padmanabhan on what he believes is the way ahead. Excerpts: Q. What are US concerns about India's stand on the Iran issue? A. There is a consensus around the world that it is not going to be in the interest of any of us to see Iran acquire nuclear-weapons capability. We have had talks to see if we can be aligned together-all of us: India, Russia, United States, China and the European Union. So that Iran might choose a peaceful diplomatic path forward, come back to negotiations, suspend its current nuclear programme and negotiate in good faith with the European Union. That was the basis of our talks with India. We understand the Indian position-that it does not wish Iran to acquire nuclear-weapons capability. Q. What will it take for the US Congress to endorse the civilian nuclear deal with India? A. Both sides have made commitments to each other and we expect both intend to meet them. I think what we might do is to develop a schedule so that India can see that the US is meeting its commitments and the US can see that India is meeting theirs. In that way there will be the mutual confidence to go ahead in an enormously complex agreement. It might take some time to implement it and we understand that. Q. Are changes needed before the deal is ratified by the Congress? A. The Congress needs to take proactive action to allow this deal to be consummated. And if it is looking to see if India is beginning to implement the agreement and vice versa, I would expect concurrent action by both sides.

The episode has no doubt brought about a realisation that as India seeks a larger global status, it will increasingly find itself drawn into such sticky situations. Having successfully cleared the air with its strategic partner this time, India and the US are proceeding to implement the agreement on civilian nuclear energy. Burns launched the case for a legislative change to formalise the deal, but the acerbic response of Congressman Tom Lantos and a clutch of politicians has underlined the difficulty of the task ahead. Though on paper, the arithmetic, in both the House and the Senate, more than adds up, reality is otherwise. Voting on the issue of what many politicians believe to be a rewriting of global non-proliferation rules will not be along party lines. In any case, political expediency deems that the issue should be decided in India's favour by an overwhelming majority and not by a partisan vote. This will naturally entail bringing on board the Democrats, the biggest sceptics.

To assist in the task the Indian Government has requisitioned the services of the lobbying firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers. Though former US ambassador to India Robert Blackwill heads the firm's international wing, officials point out that he cannot lobby on India's behalf till November. By that time the dice would have been cast.

If the US Administration intends to get the requisite legislative approvals to allow Bush to announce them when he visits India in February 2006, there is not much time left. The Congress is at the half-way mark of its current session lasting till end-October. After that it will only regroup ahead of the State of the Union Address in January. Almost concurrently India will have to live up to its side of the bargain, most of which is focused on separating the military and civilian nuclear infrastructure.

Not surprising then that the next few weeks will see rounds of hectic negotiations between the two countries to thrash out a common course of action. Talk leaders Burns and Saran have their plate full. "I think what we might do is to develop a schedule so that India can see that the US is meeting its commitments and the US can see that India is meeting theirs," Burns told India Today. "In that way there will be the mutual confidence to go ahead in an enormously complex agreement on the civilian nuclear side." The under secretary's hopes -and optimism-seems to indicate that the momentum in the India-US relationship is picking up after the minor hiccup.

Index