Unfortunately, there is still some remnant opposition to the deal. Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan from North Dakota says that the deal is a “horrible mistake” as it would “provides a green light” for India to develop new nuclear weapons. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer California tried unsuccessfully to introduce a condition that India would have to cut off military-to-military ties with Iran . Democratic Representative Ed Markey from Massachusetts moaned that the Senate's endorsement “sends the wrong signal at a time when the world is trying to prevent Iran from getting” a nuclear bomb.

As pointed out by Rice, all these allegations and assertions were disingenuous and conditions that the US does not expect of even its closest allies. India has already unilaterally declared a moratorium on testing and no-first-use policy. It has already said that while it will support Iran get benefits for signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it also expects Tehran to honor all its international commitments. After feedback from Russia and the US, India has already tightened its laws to control export of nuclear, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and dual use technologies. Most importantly, these protestations do not consider the democratic, secular, and restrain that India has demonstrated in modern history that surpasses even the US . For example, despite several terrorist attacks India has never targeted any community and despite invasion by Pakistani regulars in Kargil , India chose not to cross the Line of Control (LoC) to evict the Pakistani troops. Even though the Senate overwhelmingly rejected many amendments and changes, one new provision was inserted where the President had to attest that India has joined a multi-lateral effort to curb Iran’s nuclear ambition.

Another important objection from opponents of the deal tried to insert a Pakistani factor into the debate. Some sought to glorify India and pin the blame on Pakistan’s “single-minded” approach. Others said that the deal may encourage China to offer a similar deal to Pakistan . The first set of arguments is apologetic and the second one self-serving. Pakistan is not in the same league as India is in terms of economy, energy needs, non-proliferation record, or international standing. Even before the nuclear deal for India was conceived, China has been transferring nuclear and WMD technology surreptitiously and is now offering them overtly. If India is having such a hard time getting a buy in from the NSG, IAEA, and hardliners in the US , Pakistan ’s case will be a non-starter.

The good news is that a majority of the Senate and Congress saw these points and that explains the overwhelming support for the deal. Unfortunately, such strong support does not mean that the process is complete. The Congressional and Senate versions need to be reconciled and ratified by respective bodies before reaching Bush’s desk for inclusion in law. After this process is complete, India needs to complete separate agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the US Government (called the “123 Agreement”), and convince the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) to approve the deal.

Whatever happens going forward, the Senate vote in a tight session with numerous issues only shows the importance of India to the United States . The Bush Administration has done more to improve bilateral relations than all previous Administrations combined. Eschewing decades of unnecessary animosity and Cold War rivalry, the two estranged democracies may find a common ground yet in furthering democracy, fight against terrorism, non-proliferation, and ensuring safe and reliable supply of energy.