But no such consideration has been shown to India. The package of 'well-meaning and high-sounding' platitudes — such as India being an 'indispensable nation'; the 'defining relationship' of this century being that between India and the U.S., the two largest democracies with shared values; and the two countries jointly fighting terrorism, seeking global security, economic revival, clean energy future and so on — mean little, assert the critics. Some of them have gone so far as to call the visit a 'damp squib' and ask why the prime minister undertook the journey at all.

It is difficult to disagree with this broad view but perhaps the critics are going a tad too far. But the minority view — that the visit was 'highly productive' and that Obama has demolished the Indian fears that he would be less friendly to India than his predecessor George Bush who gave us the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal — is also far-fetched. Even so, surely some of the positive features of the Singh-Obama talks, on which the optimists base their conclusions, cannot be brushed aside. The two most important of these are Obama's specific assurance that he had never intended to let China have a role in the India-Pakistan relationship. If so, why was the joint statement in the Chinese capital worded the way it was?

Obama also waxed eloquent about the virtues of Indian democracy. Surely, he knows that China is not a democracy and is unlikely to be one for as long as one can foresee. Yet, the respect he is showing to India is not even a fraction of what he is pouring on the rulers of the Middle Kingdom. China's economic and financial clout is so huge that it has a whip hand over America. New Delhi, alas, has no leverage.

Next only to China's phenomenal rise and concomitant assertiveness towards one and all, the defining issue of the present age is terrorism of which 'Af-Pak' is the hub and Pakistan the main exporter. For this reason, the strong condemnation of terrorism and equally strong 'resolve' to fight and defeat it, included in the Singh-Obama joint statement, merits attention. The two leaders underscored the imperative of punishing the perpetrators of 26/11 and 'eliminating safe heavens and sanctuaries' in Pakistan and Afghanistan that provide shelter to terrorists. Excellent rhetoric once again, but will it be translated into action?

Two superfine articles on the anniversary of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, by eminent American scholars, Frederic Grare and Christine Faire, have pertinently underlined two chilling lessons: First that Pakistan has been in a denial mode as well as defiant and refuses to act against terrorist outfits targeting India. Secondly, the international community, led by the U.S., has put the victim and the attacker virtually on the same footing. There is a cry that India should 'show restraint', talk to Pakistan and 'make concessions'. Obama has hailed Indian role in 'rebuilding' Afghanistan. But his commander in Kabul, General Stanley McChrystal, has pontificated that the Indian presence in Afghanistan 'creates problems in Pakistan' for him. The U.S. will always look after its own interests, not India's. As some have bluntly put it, mighty China is America's 'banker' and has the U.S. in its thrall, and Pakistan is America's 'security sub-contractor in Afghanistan'.

Whether Obama's rhetoric about India would ever be matched by reality remains to be seen. But Obama's capacity to deliver on his promises is greatly in doubt even in his own country. His approval ratings have fallen to 50 per cent. Two of the most astute statesmen have made remarks unflattering to him and his policies. The highly respected Singapore veteran, Lee Kuan Yew, visiting the U.S. told the ruling establishment: 'You guys have given China a free run'. Henry Kissinger told a questioner: 'President Obama is chess master. He has already made more than half a dozen moves but hasn't completed any. I would like him to complete at least one'.

Now let me briefly indicate where the visit failed to produce the results expected of it. Both sides had been crowing that signing of an agreement fully to 'operationalise' the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear deal would be among the big-ticket events during the visit. Another agreement was intended to expand and deepen cooperation between Indian and American intelligence and law enforcement agencies to meet the mounting threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, neither was signed. What is needed on the nuclear deal is for the two countries to have an agreed text for reprocessing American nuclear fuel in a 'dedicated facility' in India. Negotiators were working overtime to clinch this deal in time for Dr. Singh's arrival. Unlike Bush, Obama did not drive them hard enough. On the contrary, the American side made demands that India just could not accept. Whether this can  be dismissed as 'dotting the I's and crossing the Ts', as the prime minister remarked, is debatable. But the two countries have up to February to conclude the agreement. Obama has said that India is a 'nuclear weapons power' and he is committed to fulfilling the nuclear deal. On the other hand, his administration has created a lot of uncertainties in the last six months, and non-proliferation ayatollahs in the U.S. are hell-bent on hectoring India in  future.

However, even if India and U.S. are unable to conclude an agreement on reprocessing, there is no skin off    India's nose. The Nuclear Suppliers Group's 'clean waiver' permits us to import nuclear reactors from Russia   and France and nuclear fuel from wherever we can. The only sufferers will be U.S. companies anxious to partake of this country's very lucrative nuclear market.

. top