Travelling through Pakistan just after Benazir's assassination, I was surprised by one thing. Amidst all the recrimination, all the accusations, and all the conspiracy theories, not once did I hear anyone blame India. Or as would have been the case some years ago, Indian 'agencies'. From the average person in Larkana, to the intellectual in Islamabad, no one said India was plotting to 'destabilise' Pakistan. In fact wherever I went people were appreciative of India's support in what they saw as their darkest days.

The bonhomie remained when I returned this month for the elections. I normally hear bitter complaints from Foreign ministry officials about how Indian journalists are 'biased' against Pakistan. Instead I heard from them, even from the President's office, how Indian journalists understand their politics and their problems so much better than Western journalists!

Call me a cynic, the absence of bitterness is the greatest proof I had that the India-Pakistan peace process is on track. "Indian policy towards Pakistan has worked on two counts," explained a journalist who has watched the situation closely, "First, Indian officials have made it clear they won't comment on Pakistan's internal problems. Second, they have said they will deal with whoever is in power there, and not tied themselves to Musharraf who is growing more unpopular by the day."

The policy is part of the promise Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf made to each other in Havana in 2006, to bring the rhetoric down, and to conduct negotiations quietly, and not via the media, as before.

It is a promise that seems to have been kept, and is clearly bearing fruit.

It's even more ironic then, that when it comes to a country like Pakistan, with such a bitter history between us, we keep our promises, but it isn't so easy to do that when it comes to the commitments we have already given the US on the nuclear deal.

Amidst all the noise we have heard from the Left and the opposition over the deal, the loud voices over allowing Uncle Sam to subsume India, to it killing India's nuclear ambitions, we're forgetting one basic fact- that the Indian state has given its word.

When Indian officials- including our National Security Adviser, our Foreign secretary and others sat with US officials on the 123 agreement in Washington-and froze the text last July, they effectively signed off on the deal, and committed to taking the necessary clearances from the IAEA for it.

You could debate the deal, you can point and counterpoint its merit, but really, the time for the debate ended then. What we have seen since then, is a precedent for India. That our government has since then hemmed and hawed, and held regular consultations on the deal with the Left parties, that it has then agreed for Parliament to debate what is already a Foreign policy decision, is strange. Parliament doesnt ratify treaties once they have been cleared by the cabinet.

What's worse, fearing the government would fall, the UPA has used its negotiations with the IAEA, a commitment made on the world stage, as a bargaining chip in domestic power-play with CPI and CPI(M).

I could point out that the civilian nuclear agreement, when it goes through, is not just about nuclear trade with the US. The process of IAEA and NSG clearances would allow us to deal with Russia, France, even China for similiar agreements. Russia and France have both made it clear they would like to go ahead with civil nuclear deals as soon as we have the clearances.

I could point out that not going through with the negotiations at this late stage would taint India's credibility for all international negotiations for some time to come. And I could say that the government might as well conclude the deal now, even if Left parties withdraw support- it would herald elections by November this year, which is only a few months less than the UPA's full term.

But this is not about the deal. It is about good faith.

Because, Mr. Prime Minister, a promise is a promise.