A non-partisan US Congressional study has underlined lawmakers' unease over India's non-proliferation record and its links with nuclear renegade Iran, on the eve of a Senate vote on a landmark US atomic deal with New Delhi.
The report by the Congressional Research Service raised the issue of whether India had adequate teeth to implement export control regulations in efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In 2004, the United States imposed sanctions on two Indian scientists for nuclear related transfers to Iran, which is facing sanctions for refusing to comply with UN demands it freeze its uranium enrichment work.
The Congressional report by Sharon Squassoni, a national defence specialist, noted that President George W. Bush's administration had not formally responded to claims that India had a "flawed" non-proliferation record in the nuclear area.
It also cited allegations that New Delhi had a "poorly implemented" national export control system and an "illicit" procurement system for its own nuclear weapons program, as well as a procurement system that "may unwittingly transfer sensitive information" about uranium enrichment.
"India's non-proliferation record continues to be scrutinised, as India continues to take steps to strengthen its own export controls," the report said ahead of an expected Senate vote this week on the US-India civilian nuclear deal clinched by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in March.
Under the deal, India, a non-signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), would be allowed access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing its atomic reactors under global safeguards.
To facilitate the deal, the US Congress has to create an exception for India from some of the requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to non-NPT signatories.
The US House of Representatives gave its thumbs-up to the deal in July but a Senate vote had been delayed due to legislative elections last week that resulted in Democratic control of both chambers in the new Congress from January.
The current Congress is Republican dominated but the party is divided on the Indian nuclear deal.
"President Bush has tried to sell this nuclear deal by claiming that India is our natural ally, but as Ronald Reagan once said, 'Trust, but verify.'" said Edward Markey, who co-chairs a House bipartisan taskforce on non-proliferation.
"It is clear that on the issue of preventing Iran from going nuclear -- and on the crucial issue of non-proliferation -- India's record is not encouraging," he said.
Democratic Senator Russ Feingold said US-Indian nuclear agreement had potentially significant ramifications for US national security and the NPT that must be addressed when it is debated in the Senate.
He plans to include a provision in the deal "to ensure that US nuclear assistance to India is civilian in nature and will not be used to further develop India's nuclear weapons capability."
Squassoni suggested that some kinds of Indian support might be more important than others, for example, in backing a diplomatic drive to pursue negotiations with Iran or by coming aboard the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative aimed at containing the spread of unconventional weapons.
She said India's long relationship with Iran and its support of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) positions on non-proliferation "are obstacles" to India's taking a hard line on Iran.
Yet, the Bush Administration, she added, had asserted that US-India nuclear co-operation would bring India into the "non-proliferation mainstream." US weapons experts have warned that forging a civilian nuclear agreement with non-NPT member India would not only make it harder to enforce rules against renegades Iran and North Korea, but also set a dangerous precedent for other countries with nuclear ambitions.