After India got independence from the colonial rule in 1947, the process of rebuilding the economy started.

For this various policies and schemes were formulated.If on one hand agriculture received the immediate attention on the other side industrial sector was developed at a fast pace to provide employment opportunities to the growing population and to keep pace with the developments in the world. Since then Indian economy has come a long way. New Delhi, which is seeking new sources of energy to feed its booming economy, has been denied access to civilian nuclear technology for over two decades after conducting nuclear tests in 1974. India has also staunchly refused to sign the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) on the grounds that it is discriminatory. For energy hungry India the need for natural gas is more pressing than ever and its demand for gas will expand significantly over the next two decades. Indias gas demand will almost double by 2015 and due to the decline of its reserves it will be forced to import increasing amounts of gas. As the worlds second largest gas reserve, Iran is the most geographically convenient supplier of gas to India India-Iran gas pipeline The India-Iran gas pipeline project was originally conceived in 1989. The project involves laying a 2,500-km pipeline between India and Iran via Pakistan, passing through Pakistan. Of this, 1,000 km will be in Iran, 800 km in Pakistan and 700 km in India. If the project materialises it will be a win-win situation for all three countries. For Iran, there will be assured demand for its gas and the 1,000-km long pipeline will entail huge investment; Pakistan will get an annual revenue of $400-500 million in terms of transit fee; India will be assured of regular supply of gas through the pipeline resulting in savings of around $300 million. The cost of the project is to be borne between Iran, Pakistan and India in the ratio of 48:32:20 The pipeline project is a crucial aspect of India's efforts at attaining 'energy security', since the country currently imports three-fourths of its requirements of crude oil. India considered three transport routes for gas from Iran: shipping it through the Arabian Sea on board tankers in the form of LNG, sending it through a deep sea pipeline, or alternatively transporting it on land via a 1700-mile pipeline from Irans South Pars field to India. The latter option means 475 miles of the pipeline will pass through Balochistan in southern Pakistan. A land based pipeline would be four times cheaper than any other option, even after taking into account transit fee payments to Pakistan. But for a long time political tensions between India and Pakistan made it difficult for Delhi to accept an energy project that would create dependence on a neighbor with whom its relations are far from stable. Washington-based Pakistani journalist Khalid Hasan says that "The fact is that this pipeline suits Iran, it suits Pakistan, it suits India, It will also be a major contributor to the goodwill of the peace process between India and Pakistan. So, I think the national interests of all three countries will override any objections the U.S. might have." Notwithstanding US reservations over the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, the World Bank has described it as a win-win deal and expressed readiness to fund the seven billion dollar project. IPI gas pipeline project is a win-win project for Pakistan and India besides being good and quite feasible in catering the energy needs of Pakistan and

India. While acknowledging that the pipeline was a 'win-win-win' situation for the three countries involved, Ravi K Batra, distinguished fellow at the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), a New Delhi- based think tank pointed out at least three reasons why the pipeline project would have to be placed on the backburner. Firstly, U.S. opposition to the pipeline is strident. ''The U.S. is not pulling its punches,'' said Batra, who served as energy expert with India's public sector oil establishment before joining TERI. The second reason relates to the pricing of gas. India would like to pay an 'affordable price' for the gas from Iran and, according to Batra, this is a mere euphemism for prices below prevailing market rates. So far, Iran has not been obliging. Finally, the pipeline project has been affected by the unrest in Pakistan's Baluchistan province. ''There is talk of building a longer pipeline along Pakistan's coast which may be longer but safer,'' Batra said. Despite the inherent benefits of the pipeline project for all the parties, it has failed to make much headway thanks to US pressure. The last trilateral meeting was held in 2007. India is under pressure from Washington to scrap the deal. The US has been sending a "strong signal" to countries engaged in business dealings with Iran that they may face ramifications; the US has asked India and other emerging powers to play a key role in galvanizing the global community for imposing sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear issue. "We are expecting everyone, particularly, emerging powers to play a significant role in this (issue)," Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, P J Crowley, told reporters, when asked about the latest Indian move to resume talks with Iran for a multi-billion dollar gas pipeline project. His comments came a day after Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake warned all countries against engaging in transactions with Iran. In January 2010, the United States asked Pakistan to abandon the pipeline project. If canceling the project, Pakistan would receive assistance from the United States for construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal and importing electricity from Tajikisthan through Afghanisthan. However, on 16 March 2010 in Ankara, Iran and Pakistan signed an agreement on the pipeline. Pakistan is in favor of the pipeline project because, in addition to getting natural gas from Iran, it would earn an estimated one billion dollars annually in transit fees. Iran would ship approximately 5 million tons of natural gas to India over the next 25 years and would be worth approximately $22 billion dollars. Patrick Clawson , Deputy Director for Research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy says the United States appreciates the support India has given on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. But he adds that Washington would be delighted if the Iran-India pipeline never got built: The concern is that the international investment in Iran's oil and gas industries is giving confidence to the Iranian government, and that Iran is not paying much of a price for its defiance of the Security Council over the nuclear matter.The

United States says Iran would benefit from huge gas sales as a result of the pipeline. Washington fears the pipeline will reduce the West's economic leverage over Tehran , that is necessary to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. And, as United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members draft fresh sanctions against Iran, Washingtons gaze has returned to the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline and energy ties of Iran with Pakistan and India. The Obama administration, which is spearheading the new round of sanctions against Tehran, is now encouraging India and Pakistan to stay away from projects like the gas pipeline even as it attempts to stop Iran from moving ahead with its nuclear programme. The US unease clearly extends to Indias ties with Iran. Washington has continued to closely watch Indias ties with Iran and this was apparent even during the time the IndoUS civilian nuclear deal was going through the process in the US. On India, Mr Blake merely said that Washington does not want countries to enter into such deals with Tehran. This is a very sensitive time in negotiations with Iran, and we would prefer all countries not to conduct such transactions with Iran at this time, for the reasons that I already outlined, India had earlier voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in February 2006 and again in November 2009 in a departure from its foreign policy traditions. Top independent commentators have criticised the easing out of Mani Shankar Aiyar. Writing in the 'Outlook' weekly, Prem Shankar Jha said Aiyar may have been moved out as a side-effect of the long-term, energy security plans he was beginning to implement that would have shifted control of the energy market in this region away from the U.S. The above mentioned statements and warnings of the US and the reaction of Indian government make it abundantly clear that the US is exerting undue pressure on India to stay away from the IPI pipeline deal. At this point Indian leaders need to stand up to US arm-twisting and put its foot down firmly and not bow down to US pressure . India needs to secure its future energy requirements, keeping in mind the rate of development our economy and should know that even in UK the Commons Foreign Affairs committee in the lower house of parliament issued a report recently calling for a 'hard-headed' approach to the Anglo-American liaison. It said the perception that the British government was a subservient poodle to the US administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread -- both among the British public and overseas and it added that this perception is extremely damaging to the reputation and interests of the UK. With this in the background It was indeed refreshing to know that since the last trilateral meeting held in 2007 , now three years after India went cold on the talks, on the sidelines of the meeting in Cancun, Deora proposed restarting trilateral talks in Tehran in May. "The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline discussions have been going on," said Petroleum Secretary S Sundareshan, who was accompanying Oil Minister Murli Deora during his stay in New York after returning from the International Energy Forum in Cancun.

"We must leave the politics aside, ultimately this pipeline project can progress if the gas is variable at reasonable rates at the India-Pakistan border," he added. "It's basically going to be a business decision at the end of the day India has twice in two days underscored its good ties with Iran at a time the US is pressuring New Delhi to toe its line on sanctions against Tehran for its alleged nuclear programme. Days after Washington advised New Delhi to keep away from Iran, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao today described the West Asian nation as a responsible country with which India had substantive historical relations. Government sources had let it be known that Indias ambassador in Tehran would attend a conference on nuclear disarmament that Iran is hosting. Right way to go for Indias bright future.