Dear Mr. Sreenivasan, I guess you're a former diplomat for the country. It's precisely those ambiguities left wittingly open for different interpretations is the problem. It's always the interpretation of the stronger of the two parties to the agreement prevails, and in this case it is the US. PV Narasimha Rao as a strategy left many issued unattented knowing fully well that those issues get resolved on their own in due course. But he left only those that fit that consideration. Apparently Manmohan Sing is copying his mentor's style in a wrong issue unaware that the nation has to pay the price when the interpretation comes up. The best example was "Nuclear Testing" which was left ambiguous. No sooner the PM asserted in the parliament that the agreement doesn't forbid us from testing than the reply came pat from the US that the agreement would be off the moment we test. It's the American Govt., muffled those voices who said these as they do not want to add more fuel to already ragin inferno here in Delhi. Both the US and we are hoping that such day and need would not arise wherein a clarification is required. But nevertheless, it is in our interest to get it clarified. External Affairs minister may state that the Hyde Act is not binding on us. Perfectly right! But it is binding on the Govt of the day in the US. A matured agreement should address all eventualities and if it can't for whatever reason those should be adversely affecting the other but not us if those ev
