A day earlier, Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh inked a deal for the United States to provide nuclear fuel, reactors and know-how to help this energy-starved nation meet its growing demand for power, while allowing it to continue developing nuclear weapons.

"Yesterday was a way to put the Cold War behind us," Bush said of the historic nuclear accord.

As part of an effort to nurture economic ties with a nation that was once estranged from the United States, the president flew here to take in both this city's high-tech activity that is helping to drive rapid economic growth and the rural areas around it that lag behind.

The meeting with business leaders and an earlier tour around the dusty campus of an agricultural college were aimed at showcasing ways the United States and India can cooperate to spur innovation across industries.

India's exploding economy has created millions of jobs. India's outsourcing industry alone is expected to bring in $22 billion in revenue this fiscal year, much of that generated by U.S. companies.

"People do lose jobs as a result of globalization and it's painful for those who lose jobs," Bush acknowledged. "Globalization provides great opportunities."

The boom has created millions of jobs along with consumer demands that have attracted American businesses. A luxury goods market has even emerged, with brands like Louis Vuitton and Rolls Royce setting up shop along with consumer demands that have attracted American businesses.

Though 80 percent of Indians live on less than $2 a day, India's middle class has swelled to a number larger the population of the entire United States. The U.S. trade deficit with India, however, nearly doubled between 2001 and 2005 to $10 billion.

At Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Bush watched Indians using sticks and tools to hand-till soil around young peanuts, tomatoes and soybeans.

Bush was greeted here by the heavy presence of police and paramilitary soldiers. Black flags flew above buildings in the predominantly Muslim Charminar quarter, where shops were closed in protest. Several hundred communist and Muslim demonstrators, chanting "Bush hands off India" and "Bush go home," carried posters of Osama bin Laden and burned an effigy of the American president.

"We are protesting against George Bush because he is a warmonger," said B.V. Raghavulu, a leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

There was also a protest against Bush Friday in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir.

Later Friday, Bush was flying to Pakistan for an overnight visit under tight security to a close ally struggling with terrorism problems. An American diplomat and three other people were killed when a suicide attacker rammed a car packed with explosives into theirs. The bombing on Thursday was in Karachi, about 1,000 miles south of Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, where Bush will meet with Pervez Musharraf, the military leader who took power in a 1999 coup.

U.S. officials said there was evidence the U.S. diplomat, foreign service officer David Foy, was targeted.

"Terrorists and killers are not going to prevent me from going to Pakistan," Bush said at a news conference Thursday in New Delhi with Singh.

Bush aides said there were security concerns about the president going to Pakistan but that officials were satisfied adequate precautions were in place. "But this is not a risk-free undertaking," said national security adviser Stephen Hadley.

Eight months in the making, the nuclear accord Bush and Singh announced Thursday would reverse decades of U.S. policy and end India's long isolation as a nuclear maverick that defied world appeals and developed nuclear weapons.

India agreed to separate its tightly entwined nuclear industry - declaring 14 reactors as commercial facilities and eight as military - and to open the civilian side to international inspections for the first time.

The agreement must be approved by Congress, and Bush acknowledged that might be difficult. India still refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and skeptics worry that India's military nuclear program would remain outside of international safeguards.

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, gave its endorsement, calling the deal "an important step towards satisfying India's growing need for energy, including nuclear technology and fuel, as an engine for development."

"It would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation game," IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a statement.

The nuclear agreement drew fire from some in Congress. Critics have complained the deal undermines efforts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"With one simple move the president has blown a hole in the nuclear rules that the entire world has been playing by and broken his own word to assure that we will not ship nuclear technology to India without the proper safeguards," said Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"While I believe that the Congress will support this agreement, it is important to take into consideration the nonproliferation concerns raised by some of my colleagues," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn, said.

The White House said India was unique because it had protected its nuclear technology and not been a proliferator. The administration also argued it was a good deal because it would provide international oversight for part of a program that has been secret since India entered the nuclear age in 1974.

The deal also could be a boon for American companies that have been barred from selling reactors and material to India.

© 2006 The Associated Press.

Though an ally for a long time, India voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meetings twice, apparently to: (a) strengthen the US-India alliance, (b) legitimise India's nuclear weapons, and (c) obtain great power status, and perhaps on sudden realisation of the virtues of nuclear electricity.

However, things do not appear to be as smooth or inspiring as it seems. With growing rhetoric and possibility of a confrontation, Indian government is becoming increasingly nervous at the reference of Iran to the Security Council to abandon its nuclear plans. However, US has realised that UN sanctions on Iran may be possible only through tough diplomacy. US considers Iran as "central banker" for global terrorism, a partner with Syria in destabilising the Middle East, despite the claim of Bush administration that its "war on terrorism" is successful we hardly see any sign of it.

On the contrary, she is destroying the economy of Iraq, killing innocent Iraqi civilians and demolishing a large number of historical sites. In its striving to control firmly Iraqi oil, the recent destablisation of oil market is seriously affecting the growth of developing countries, particularly the non-oil producing least developed countries. In Afghanistan, the common Afghanis appear to be in favour of withdrawal of UN forces from their soil. In Pakistan, it is not certain as to how long Pervez Musharraf will be able to contain the growing anti-US feeling.

Even if we assume that Iran has secret nuclear ambitions, other members of the UN perhaps do not have the moral right to object. After all, Pakistan, India, and Israel have built the bomb. If these countries can get away with their atomic arsenals, why shouldn't Iran? There is no morality that enjoins that India, Pakistan, and Israel can have nuclear bomb, but not Iran. The fear that Iran will eventually dominate large parts of the Middle East appears to be rather speculative. The fact is that US desires to remain dominant everywhere.

The growing closer relation between India and the US may not help establishing the envisaged peace in South Asia. Neither can it be overlooked by China or Russia. India may lose its image as a sober, neutral, and peaceful country. This will encourage her small neighbours to develop closer relationship with China.

US-South Asia relationship vacillated between "close embrace and uneasy distance" for the last five decades.

Bangladesh-US relationship was not friendly at independence, it started changing with the visits of presidents Zia and Ershad to the US. A number of developments between 1990s and the early 21st century helped in strengthening of US-Bangladesh relationship. Among these developments were Bangladesh's participation in US-led Gulf War coalition against Iraq, US assistance to Bangladesh to recover from devastating cyclone in 1990, and the first ever visit of a sitting US president (Bill Clinton).

In 2003, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that "Bangladesh's democracy, Bangladesh's economic progress, Bangladesh's friendship and Bangladesh's people do matter to the US." Pakistan is already an ally and strategic partner of US. The other prime object of US attention is India. The US wants India to undertake regional responsibilities commensurate with its growing power. The strengthening of Indo-US bilateral relations will have implications for Bangladesh and other countries in South Asia. As far as Bangladesh is concerned, US attention to Bangladesh is because it is a democratic moderate Muslim country as compared to Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other US allies in the Muslim world.

It would be relevant to discuss in this regard about Bangladesh's present relationship with China. Because of very rapid growth of China (average around 9 per cent) over the last two decades, the US is showing concern. China has consistently a diplomatic strategy with two basic goals: to maintain a peaceful environment conducive to its economic development and to minimise the scope for the US and its allies to slow down China's rise. It has its own set of strategic interests to prevent rise of any peer or competitor or rival in Asia. It particularly seeks to keep India's power and influence confined within its borders and to enhance China's influence in South Asia.

China regards Bangladesh as having the potential to facilitate its security interests in the region. In fact, Bangladesh can play a vital part in promoting Chinese interests in the regional order. It can connect south western China with South Asia by a land route. Bangladesh along with Myanmar can provide Chinese access to the Bay of Bengal and to the Indian Ocean.

Both India and the US consider Bangladesh-China present relationship at acceptable level. However, within a decade or so, Bangladesh will have to reassure them that it is not siding with China against India. The signing of Bangladesh-China defence cooperation agreement has, however, raised suspicion in India as to its scope and intent. For strategic reasons, Bangladesh will have to be more attentive to China's political goals and show deference to its geo-political interests, views, and values. Once South Asia comes within China's sphere of influence, the situation would render China a power in South Asia too, and make its participation in any regional forum, security or otherwise, inevitable. If the US continues to prosecute its unproductive, indefinite, and costly war on terrorism, its economic power as well as its capacity for leadership may attenuate, resulting in the erosion of US political and military role in the Asia-Pacific.

The recent US-India defence pact may have serious implications for the arms race and raise strategic questions regarding relations with China. China-India-Pakistan triangular relationship is a vital factor for South Asian peace. Bangladesh's internal security situation has become worse. The Islamic extremists are conducting repeated bomb raids. The government response to deal with them is inadequate so far. If India-China relationship deteriorates due to increasing US interest in Indian affairs, Bangladesh will be in a difficult situation as to whom to support -- India or China.

As we see from our experience during the last five decades or so, China has proved to be a very trusted ally. Thus it may be a folly for us to damage or destroy our relationship with China to satisfy either India or the US. Our defence, economic, and technological capability should certainly improve rapidly to make our country self-reliant. We also need to develop mutual trust and confidence with other neighbours of the region. Our policymakers must carry out a true socio-political study to determine exactly the loss and profit for our people.

A.B.M.S. Zahur is a retired Joint Secretary.

His comments, made in response to an audience question following a speech to a meeting of the World Jewish Congress, appeared to go farther than the administration of
President George W. Bush has previously gone in embracing the two nations' nuclear programs.

They also coincide with a visit by Bush to India in which the United States is offering New Delhi de facto recognition of its nuclear arms program. Bush is due to travel to Pakistan from India.

The United States imposed punitive sanctions on India after it tested a nuclear bomb in 1998. In the same year, the
U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a resolution condemning India and Pakistan for their nuclear weapons tests.

Under a deal India and the United States agreed in principle in July 2005, New Delhi would commit itself to certain international nonproliferation standards including putting its civilian nuclear facilities under international inspection.

In return it would gain access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology, including fuel and reactors, that it was denied for 30 years. India's military facilities would not be subject to inspections under the deal.

At the same time, the U.S. administration is pressing Iran to turn its back on a program to enrich uranium on its own soil, a plan Tehran insists is intended only to produce electric power but which Washington insists aims to develop nuclear bombs.

Bolton noted that neither India nor Pakistan had ever signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, intended to contain the spread of atomic arms, while Iran had done so.

"I give them (India and Pakistan) credit at least that what they did was consistent with the obligations they undertook," Bolton said.

"They never pretended that they had given up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. They never tried to tie what they were doing under a cloak of international legitimacy. They did it openly and they did it legitimately," he said.

The 1998 Security Council resolution called on India and Pakistan to stop all nuclear development programs immediately and urged other states to stop selling either country equipment that could be used in atomic arms.

WASHINGTON - How it happened or who's responsible is a mystery eight years after the fact. But what may have been a simple error - or perhaps something more ominous - has given a multimillion-dollar windfall to a group of oil and gas companies and could cost the government billions of dollars more in the years to come.

The Interior Department disclosed Wednesday that a provision was mysteriously deleted from hundreds of federal drilling leases in the late 1990s that would have required producers to pay royalties, once prices reached a certain level, on oil or gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

In 1995, Congress exempted deep-water oil from royalty payments to spur development. But a price threshold was included in leases issued in 1996 and 1997 and again in leases sold in each year since 2000 that reinstates the royalties if market prices reach a certain level.

For some reason the language "was inadvertently dropped" from an addendum attached to more than 1,100 leases the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service issued for 1998 and 1999, Walter Cruickshank, the agency's deputy director, told a House Government Reform subcommittee Wednesday.

He said officials have not been able to determine who made the change, although he said it had to have been a human act, not a computer glitch.

"It is clear that there is no record telling people to take the language out," he said, and it was widely known that the department wanted the price threshold restriction in any oil and gas leases as a matter of policy.

In the late 1990s, when oil prices were well below the threshold, the issue may not have attracted attention.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the subcommittee chairman, called the whole matter "suspicious."

"This is a $7 billion word processing error," Issa told reporters. He said some of the leases issued during those two years could remain in effect for as long as 85 years, so the government will be unable to collect royalty payments from oil and gas taken from those leases for decades to come.

While providing no specific number, Cruickshank said the government already has lost "several hundred million" dollars in royalty payments from the 1998-99 leases because they lacked the threshold language. If prices remain high, lost royalties "will be in the billions of dollars," he acknowledged.

The price threshold where royalties must be paid changes yearly. Most recently it was set at about $34 a barrel for oil and $4.34 per thousand cubic feet for natural gas, according to Interior officials. The price of oil Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange was nearly $62 a barrel and the government estimates it will remain in the $50-a-barrel range for years to come. Natural gas prices have been in the $9-per-thousand-cubic-feet range.

Issa said he planned to seek more documents from the Minerals Management Service, and said the issue may need to be investigated by the Justice Department to determine whether there was any deliberate wrongdoing.

When Congress enacted the royalty relief program for deep-water exploration and development, it was embraced by the Clinton administration as a way to spur more energy production in areas where the technology and prospects of success were still somewhat uncertain.

Cruickshank said he had no explanation for why the threshold requirement was taken out of the lease language when an addendum was changed for the 1998-99 leases to reflect other regulatory changes.

"Everyone knew the (price) threshold applied" but people didn't focus on it because of low market prices at the time, said Cruickshank, who joined the agency in 1988 but was not involved in writing leases.

The mystery surrounding the 1998-99 leases is part of a broader question over whether any royalty relief should be given to the industry, given high oil and gas prices and huge industry profits.

The Interior Department estimates that as much as $66 billion worth of oil and natural gas that will be taken from the Gulf of Mexico between now and 2011 falls under the royalty relief law enacted by Congress in 1995. Much of that oil and gas will be subject to royalties under the price threshold provision, which is included in leases other than those issued in 1998-99.

Several oil and gas companies have challenged the legality of the threshold requirement in leases issued before 2001. Kerr McGee, a major natural gas producer, has given notice to the Interior Department that it will soon file a lawsuit arguing that the threshold provisions are illegal.

The Interior Department will "vigorously defend" the ability to impose royalties under a price threshold provision, said Cruickshank. "There's a lot of money at stake."

On the Net: - Minerals Management Service: http://www.mms.gov/

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.