When charters, accords, deeds are drafted, legal jargon is incorporated for safeguarding all parties to a deal and what constitutes a breach is spelt out. Language used is 'reserve the right to withdraw'. This in legal terms is not equivalent to 'will withdraw' it means 'may withdraw'. Much depends on the popular mood in both countries. Politicians are puppets when a popular opinion takes shape. So please stop being naive. Do you expect Bush to declare in USA that they will continue supplying fuel to India for civilian nuclear usage if India conducts a nuclear test when a non-proliferation agenda is existing in the USA? Also do you expect India not to conduct a nuclear test if strategic wisdom so demands? Take the deal as a stop gap arrangement whilst keeping efforts on for other avenues for reactor rich fuel before the need for nuclear test arises. Deals are made, used and broken, new ones made again. Heavens don't fall. It is the clowns in politics who scream 'foul' all around. This is what we are witnessing both in India and USA. Shut up, use the fuel acquired, keep searching for other avenues of supplies(USA anyhow has been a lousy business partner throughout history). Conduct a nuclear test if the situation demands. Change the business partner if US gets meddlesome. Stop screaming for now - we need the fuel, the power situation in the country is far from satisfactory. And no, I am not in love with the Congress or any other politician for that matter.
