The UK, following the footsteps of its eternal ally the US, has also decided to enhance civil nuclear cooperation with India, despite its defence and foreign secretaries opposing the move in view of the security concerns that it would undermine the integrity of the nuclear non-proliferation. British PM David Cameron, in a recent Cabinet meeting, is reported to have advanced the argument that commercial interests outweighed the security concerns. The decision helped in clinching a 500-million pound deal for the sale of British Hawk jets to India when David Cameron himself led a trade mission to Delhi. It also cleared the way for the transfer of nuclear material by British companies, who had been lobbying for this opening since long. In October 2008, the US Congress in complete disregard to Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which bars the nuclear states to transfer nuclear technology to non-signatory states, gave a formal approval to an agreement facilitating nuclear cooperation between the US and India, ending the decades old nuclear pariah status of the India. It is pertinent to mention that in 1950s, the US helped India to develop nuclear energy under the Atoms for Peace Programme. It built a nuclear reactor for India; provided nuclear fuel; and also allowed Indian scientists to study at the US nuclear laboratories. In 1974, India tested its first nuclear bomb, showing it could develop nuclear weapons with technology transferred for peaceful purposes. As a result, the US isolated India for 25 years, refusing nuclear cooperation and trying to convince other countries to do the same. But now under the agreement, India would be eligible to buy USA's dual-use nuclear technology, including materials and equipment that could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, potentially creating the material for nuclear bombs. It would also receive imported fuel for its nuclear reactors. India has promised that all future civilian thermal and breeder reactors shall be placed under IAEA safeguards permanently. However, the Indian PM is on record to have said: "India retains the sole right to determine such reactors as civilian." This means that India will continue manufacturing according to there national interest. Proponents of the India-US deal argue that it would bring Delhi closer to Washington, at a time when the two countries were forging a strategic relationship to pursue common interests in fighting terrorism, spreading democracy and preventing the domination of Asia by a single power. They also feel that India had proved that it was not a nuclear proliferation risk. These developments prove that the duo (US and UK) has no respect for the international treaties and obligations when it comes to their strategic objectives and commercial interests. They are trying to support India as a counterbalance to the rising influence of China, and like in the past they will continue their engagement with Pakistan on issue to issue basis, rather than forging 'strategic partnership'. These are ominous portents for the future as far as Pakistan is concerned. Their preference for civil nuclear cooperation with India exhibiting callous insensitivity to Pakistan's security concerns has already triggered a nuclear race in the region. Thus, Pakistan has to look up to its time-tested friend China to come to its rescue. The US has even shown strong reaction against China's decision to help Pakistan in the nuclear field. The question is, where do we stand and what are our choices to forestall the negative fallout of the strategic objectives of the US and the UK in this region? The logical inference one can draw from these initiatives is that it may be a prelude to help India to become permanent member of the UNSC with a veto power. That would establish Indian hegemony in the region and also jeopardise the chances of the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Increased Indian presence in Afghanistan and the US envisaged role for it in fighting terrorism and reconstruction in Afghanistan, despite Pakistan's reservations, must also be a cause of worry for us. Therefore, in the light of the unfolding circumstances, we need to seriously review our relationship with the US without adopting a confrontational posture and also revisit our policies in regard to our strategic and security interests in the region. The writer is a freelance columnist.