By securing an unprecedented waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), India has just completed the most difficult leg of its three-part journey. Should India have failed to make it through, its' dreams of energy independence would have been crushed. But, India has prevailed and like the previous steps it did so amidst controversy. This analysis will examine Indian and American responses on this development.

For a government that put its survival at stake to realize its nuclear dream, the NSG waiver is more than a foreign policy achievement. It can be claimed as a personal political triumph for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the UPA government. After all the domestic controversy over the Indo-US nuclear deal, the waiver is viewed as historic because it brings the nuclear and technological isolation faced by India, since Pokhran I, to a close. There is no greater irony, than of the NSG's special accommodation for India. This multinational body was formed in response to India's Peaceful Nuclear Explosion in 1974 and today has come full circle by lifting its conditions to allow India to engage in international nuclear commerce despite not having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The waiver received a warm welcome from almost the entire strategic community as well as the general public. This is significant because India now has access to nuclear fuel and dual-use technologies. In addition to granting India a de facto nuclear weapons state status, the waiver signifies India's emergence as a world power. More importantly, it signifies a breakthrough in Indo-US relations. The UPA government is confident and satisfied about the waiver text and has said that it is close to the "clean and unconditional" waiver that they were looking for.

This celebration cannot of course be devoid of opposition. As expected, criticisms poured in from the Left parties, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and from some quarters of the strategic and scientific circles. Describing this momentous day as a "black day," the Left charged that the waiver was another step in surrendering to the diktats of the United States. The BJP also criticized the waiver, which they see as a nuclear non-proliferation trap which the UPA government has willingly walked into. According to the party, India, through this waiver, has surrendered its right to conduct a further nuclear test.

It is yet to be seen, how the UPA government will respond to the flood of opportunities that have been made available post -NSG waiver; however, the focus has now shifted to the last leg of this nuclear tour - the approval of the 123 Agreement by the US Congress. After the leak of the State's Department response to Congressional questions, concerns have erupted as to how differently the United States and India perceives the 123 Agreement.

In the United States, Congressional support is crucial to ensuring that the final hurdle is cleared. The Bush administration has found friends in Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Senator Joe Biden, running mate of the Democratic candidate for President. Both Senators have stated they will push the controversial deal through before the end of Bush's term. But, both house of Congress must pass this legislation and key members of the House of Representatives have not responded as keenly. International Relations Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman remains interested in examining the fine print before taking any action and Chairwoman Nancy Pelosi has offered words of encouragement but is tied to the requirements of the 2006 Hyde Act.

Should the US Congress hold the requisite lame duck session, it will likely see opposition from a number of legislators concerned with its affect on the future of non-proliferation. In a 6 September press release, Democratic Congressman Edward Markey, who has long voiced his concerns, argued that the NSG waiver "set[s] a dangerous precedent" and will certainly damage future non-proliferation efforts. Fellow party member Ellen Tauscher concurs. In a statement issued the same day, she asserted that the India-specific waiver is disastrous as it provides India with the "benefits of nuclear trade without ???the responsibilities" and has already "undermined efforts to address North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs."

Non-proliferation activists have also raised important objections. In a recent op-ed, the Stimson Center's Michael Krepon explains that by failing to identify the ramifications of nuclear testing, it is more difficult to punish India for any bad behavior. Moreover, as France and Russia will soon enter into nuclear partnerships with India, they will be less willing to punish India for such actions as it would affect their commercial interests. This is problematic when considering a statement made by Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, Anil Kakodkar, that "when" India resumes testing, it will need to evaluate the possible ramifications." For Krepon, this illustrates India's intention to resume testing. (The Hindu, 10 September 2008) The Asia Society's Mira Kamdar acknowledges this potential and argues that it would almost certainly spark an arms race in Asia as neighboring Pakistan and China would seek to balance a rising India through the expansion of their nuclear arsenals. ( The Washington Post, 7 September 2008).