Two phrases in the declaration have been used that are significant, namely "transform" their relationship and establish a "global partnership."

Many think that by transforming its relationship to a higher gear and establishing a global partnership with the US means that India has significantly shifted its foreign policy, aligning it with the US. Some say India is not beholden anymore to non-alignment, as it had lost its relevance at the end of the Cold War, although it keeps its verbal commitment towards it.

The picture of global power has changed, and India has been following Lord Palmerston's famous dictum about nations having permanent national interests, not permanent friends or eternal enemies.

Nehru, in the early years of India's independence, suggested that India should "align with the United States somewhat, and build up its economic and military strength." Obviously, Nehru thought that China and Pakistan might pose threat to its security.

In 1962, during the brief war between India and China, India reportedly sought help for 43 B-25 bombers and a range of weapons from the US. India's ambassador to the US, Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, even indicated that India would always be with America in defending the "free world" against Soviet communism. Eventually, India did not get the bombers. It was India's press, not the government, that was anti-American.

In recent years, A.B.Vajpayee brought India closer to America. Given the legacy of past rancor and recrimination, he steadily and slowly clasped the hand of America for security and economic progress.

But his decision to conduct nuclear tests in 1998 strained relations with the Clinton administration. Non-proliferation was one of Clinton's "highest priorities," and South Asia was the target of his policy.

The current Singh government has restored remarkably the close relations with the Bush administration, and there are reasons for both sides. India realizes that it cannot achieve the economic revolution of the 21st century without America's cooperation.

India understands that it needs US nuclear technology, not only for its defence but also for its energy. India has to compete with China in economic growth. This, in turn, calls for American technology and investment, and access to the US market for its goods.

The nuclear deal between the two countries is important, although some difficulties have arisen in relation to India's using US nuclear fuel and technology for military purposes. Only a few days ago the president and the prime minister reportedly discussed at length about resolving the issue.

On defence side, India reckons that it is America that can help it to defend itself. Furthermore, no other power can exert pressure on potential "enemies" who are likely to destabilize the country from within and outside.

Terrorism highlights a convergence of interests in confronting the same menace, and both conveniently ignore the reasons for being subjected to terrorism. Both the leaders consider the symptoms as the disease.

The Indian Ocean has been increasingly militarized. India, China, Myanmar, Malaysia and Pakistan are engaged in bolstering their navies to oversee the lanes of the Indian Ocean. China has extended its influence into the Indian Ocean through Myanmar's Coco Islands, where it has reportedly established a naval base.

India has been establishing military infrastructure projects that are intended for power projection on its off-shore islands. Indian navy patrols regularly visit distant shores of the Indian Ocean, that reaches out from South Africa to the Straits of Malacca.

In this context, the US navy may extend its cooperation with India to secure the fuel-rich Middle East that holds the key to global energy. On the other hand, the US needs India for strategic and economic reasons.

India has a growing middle class (about 300 million and increasing every year), and they have disposable incomes to buy sophisticated consumer goods. American goods can satisfy them. It is a big market for American multi-nationals. There is a huge possibility for cooperation in joint investment, joint enterprise, and joint exploitation of natural resources.

At the end of the Cold War, the US rekindled its hope of reinventing the world to promote good governance, democracy, human rights, and free market. The US considers India's vibrant democracy will help it to achieve this goal.

The US considers that India is the only country in Asia that is likely to be able to contain China's increasing diplomatic, military and economic influence in the region. China has already won the hearts and minds of Asean, and extends its naval power through Myanmar.

Many suggest that the current political tension in Myanmar appears to be a proxy war between China and India. If Aung San Suu Kyi becomes the leader, India's influence, along with Japan's, will increase in Myanmar at the expense of China's. This is the reality, and that is why Myanmar's military leaders have been very close to China.

Another strategic interest is Afghanistan, for both the US and India. India's strategy is that Afghanistan should not only be free from Talebans but it should also come out from Pakistan's grip. India has been partially successful in having President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, who had gone to school in Simla and referred to India as his second home.

Furthermore, Musharraf and Karzai blame each other for the upsurge of Taleban fighters in Afghanistan.

The Bush administration's priorities are -- combating terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional stability, and the challenge posed by China. The list reflects the extent to which geography shapes politics and alliances. To the Bush administration, India's size, population, skills, resources, and potential can make a major contribution as a "global partner" with the US.

India hopes that America can encourage President Musharraf to come to terms with India's geography, and advise him that Pakistan's security lies in cooperation, not confrontation, with India. The ultimate power relation between US and India, many suggest, depends on how far and to what extent the US is able to restrain and counsel Pakistan not to destablise India and, in turn, the region.

One fact to be noted is that India is a regional power, and claims not to be a client state. Therefore, India sees no anomaly in vigorously pursuing strategic cooperation with the US, while buying Russian arms and mending fences with China.

The question is -- is this strategy working? China and Pakistan are closely watching with some concern the possible impact of the growing strategic relationship between the US and India on the Asia-Pacific region.

India wants its long-term partnership with the US to be based on the vision for democracy and freedom in all countries, and many strategists suggest that democratic countries such as US-Australia-Japan-India are likely to constitute a kind of security (not military) alliance to confront North Asia's instability and China's supremacy in the Asia-Pacific region.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.