Both Pakistan and India are members of the Board. India voted for the resolution (voting against Iran), while Pakistan abstained. The other Non-Aligned countries voted against the resolution (voting for Iran).

India's vote against Iran has surprised everyone both inside and outside the country.

The leftist coalition parties of the government have protested on the streets in India against the decision and urged to reverse it at a future meeting.

No one expected India would vote against Iran, when relations between Iran and India have always been friendly.

Even during the Shah's regime, Iran's relations with India had been good and often much better than that the relations between Iran and Pakistan. It is because both are bigger countries with huge natural resources and there is always a give-take-relationship between the two countries.

Iran's disappointment
Iran, being isolated from the US since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, wants to build relationship with the European Union, China, India and Russia.

Iran now finds that under pressure from the US, the European members of the IAEA Board (France, Germany and Britain) fell in line with the US. Iran must be disappointed that its first line of opening to the world affairs through Europe has stalled.

India's messages to Iran have ranged from warning to hopes that India would not allow the US to scuttle the improving cooperation in Iranian-Indian relationship. Its second line of opening was India and India failed to keep up Iran's expectations.

US's concern on Iran-India relationship
Iran and India signed a deal to supply gas through pipeline to India through Pakistan, much to the annoyance of the US. It is because Iran will earn billions of dollars in the deal. During the visit of the US Secretary of State to India in March this year, she expressed her concern about the deal with Iran.

During India's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington in July, the US offered a deal of nuclear cooperation with India with a view to making India "a global power". Dr. Singh, while addressing a joint meeting of Congress, stated that it was "an honour reserved for the United States' closest allies" and quoting Bush that the relationship between India and the US "had never been stronger".

Iran thought that India, despite improving its strategic relationship with the US, would not let Iran down at its critical time, because India has been one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961 and since almost all Non-Aligned Board members supported the position of Iran, India would do the same.

Why did India vote against Iran?
It is believed that the US has put extreme pressure on India to vote against Iran. The US has reportedly told India that its nuclear cooperation with the US is yet to be approved by the US Congress and it is better that India would vote against Iran so that nuclear cooperation deal remains in tact.

India wants desperately the state of art nuclear technology for its security and for power and prestige. India's government buckled in under the pressure and abandoned its long-held principled position, according to political observers.

India's vote against Iran seems to have been based on the doctrine of realpolitik, pursued by Kautilya, Machiavelli, Cardinal Richelieu and Henry Kissinger. Lord Palmerston , the British Prime Minister, once said that there were no eternal friends or perpetual enemies. What is eternal and perpetual is national interest. That has been the motivation of India as manifested in the vote.

But the question remains : Was it India's interest to vote against Iran in the long run? Has it not jettisoned its long-held policy of morality, fairness and justice in international relations? Has not its image suffered among developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America?

Iran's response
Iran has not taken any step to cancel the gas deal with India. The next IAEA Board meeting will be held in November and if India again votes against Iran, observers believe that Iran might consider cancelling the whole deal.

Iran may consider to align itself strategically with the Central Asia Republics, China and Russia, some say its third window of opening to global politics.

Question of belief
While Iran has been insisting that its nuclear programme is peaceful, the US and its allies suspect Iran's words. Essentially it is a question as to who do you believe -- Iran or the US.

India has aligned itself with the US's view. On the other hand, Russia and China believe Iran's story and made it known that they would oppose it at the Security Council because diplomatic negotiations have not been exhausted with Iran.

Some say that Israel is lobbying the US to have a strong stand against Iran, even striking the nuclear plant in Iran as Israel destroyed in 1981 Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant by air strike. Vice President Dick Cheney of the US at one stage threatened that Israel might take similar action because of security risks.

Some relevant facts on the issue
India is not a member of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 and yet the Bush administration is willing to pass on nuclear technology to India. Furthermore India is known to have between 45 to 95 nuclear warheads that could be delivered through long-range ballistic missiles -- Agni II and III.

It is important to note that the NPT Treaty does not prohibit developing, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under Article IV. It goes on further in the same Article that all parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful purposes of nuclear energy.

Another fact is that Israel has developed nuclear weapons since 1968 and is believed to have between 75 and 200 nuclear warheads in a region which is unstable and Israel is not far off from Iran.

The US has kept quiet when three countries, India, Pakistan and Israel manufactured nuclear weapons and did not become members of NPT. No pressure was put on them because these countries do not pose threat to Israel and maintain good relations with the US.

Nuclear powers in breach of NPT
In the 60s, nuclear weapons were held by a handful of states. The world looked at the prospect of dozens of nuclear weapons states, and rejected it. The result was the NPT of 1970. It provides a promise of a world free of nuclear weapons.

The Treaty makes an obligation on the nuclear weapons states who are members of the NPT, such as the US, Britain, France, Russia and China to nuclear disarmament under Article VI under strict and effective international control. These states have not kept their bargain, while they insist on other countries not to develop nuclear programme.

While the nuclear weapons states refused to disarm nuclear weapons, they want other developing countries to keep their bargain in accordance with the Treaty.

The first requirement is for the five nuclear weapons states (recognised under the Treaty) to commit themselves unequivocally to the elimination of nuclear weapons and agree to start work immediately on the practical steps and negotiations required for achievement. Once they have made the commitment at the highest political level, non-nuclear weapons states should join in to implement them.

Conclusion
It does not make sense in fact while the US, Britain and France insist on Iran to stop peaceful nuclear programme, permissible under the Treaty; they are not interested to commit themselves to the elimination, even by stages, of nuclear weapons. Rather the Bush administration is reported to be conducting research on making "smart nuclear bombs".

Trust begets trust. Obligations under the Treaty are not one-way street. Both parties, nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states, must keep their obligations under the Treaty. There lie the fault lines in the Iranian nuclear programme saga.

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