The civil nuclear deal with the US does not hinder India's strategic programme and leaves enough room for conducting an atomic test in a changed geo-political situation, former diplomats have said.

They said that India and the US should put on a fast track the negotiations with the Nuclear Suppliers' Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency and pave the way for signing the pact.

"We are free to test. The agreement is for import of technology. There is no mention of treaties like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibit atomic tests," former foreign secretary Muchkund Dubey told PTI.

He also sought to dismiss the Bharatiya Janata Party's rejection of the draft 123 agreement, terming it as "political posturing."

"I am surprised by the BJP's statements. Its opposition is based on political and electoral compulsions and not on scientific reasoning," Dubey said.

Asked about the apprehensions of the scientific community on the option to carry out nuclear tests, former foreign secretary Shashank said the decision to conduct a test rests with the government of the day.

"Nuclear testing is not a decision to be taken by scientists. It is a political decision," he pointed out.

Shashank said both the US and India have made concessions, but since it was a negotiated agreement it should be looked at in its entirety and not by putting it in a negative light.

"Now, the agreement needs to be wrapped up quickly before the Bush administration moves into election mode," he said.

Naresh Chandra, India's former envoy to the US, struck a cautious note and said future governments would have to be alert and vigilant as "American politicians do not have a universal view about India."

He said this when asked whether the deal could be a cause of concern for future generations.

India would require a "lot of support" at the NSG and has to particularly guard against Pakistan, which could lobby hard to oppose the deal, Chandra said.

"China could also make attempts to thwart it and try to get a similar deal for Pakistan," he said.

Dubey dismissed apprehensions about Indian nuclear facilities being subjected to American inspections if IAEA expresses its inability to ensure safeguards.

"Why would IAEA safeguards fail? They fail in nations where governments cheat. We have been transparent in our dealings and would continue to be," he said.

Moreover, Dubey said, any decision on the failure of safeguards would have to be made by IAEA's board of governors, of which India is a member.

Chandra sought to play down attempts by some US lawmakers to link relations with India to its policy on Iran, saying the two issues were separate.

"It is unfortunate that the two issues have got connected. There is a need to separate them," he said adding, that the strong non-proliferation lobby was "cleverly using" the anti-Iran sentiments of some US lawmakers.

Shashank said a discussion in Parliament would make the government's thinking on the deal clearer.

On the objections raised by the BJP, Chandra said the main opposition and even the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh were not against the strengthening of relations with the US.

Chandra said the issues raised by the BJP were not unimportant, but whether the same are adequately addressed would be clear when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] makes a statement on the nuclear deal in Parliament.

Expressing surprise at the BJP's stand, Dubey said the nuclear deal was a culmination of a part of the process initiated by the previous National Democratic Alliance government to strengthen relations with the US.

He said the government was not bound to seek a ratification of the deal by Parliament.

"It is the job of the Union cabinet," he said.

Chandra was critical of a section of the scientific community for taking a political stand on the issue.

"The advice of scientists is very important. But it should be limited to their field. Talk about sovereignty is not in their sphere. They do have an opinion, but it does not mean that they have the last word," he said.

"If they demand in one stroke that the country be declared a nuclear weapons state, the negotiators will not be able to deliver on that," Chandra added.