Nuclear Pakistan bad; Nuclear India good?

I just checked my e-mail and saw an "e-action alert" put out by Peace Action West dealing with the Bush Administration's recent success in what the Washington Post calls "reversing three decades of nonproliferation policy." Lacking knowledge of the existence of sources to contradict WaPo's characterization, although of course always suspicious of appearances of sudden reversals of US policy (since most of what the Bushistas have been doing has been an intensification or enhancement of previous policies), I will pass over this without further comment. However, the implication is very interesting, especially in light of the administration's bleating about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and the general stir over the "Islamic bomb." Evidently, Pakistan can no longer be relied upon to be a nuclear partner. This role must pass to India, at least on the Subcontinent.

But why? Obviously, the recent upheavals in Pakistan must have something to do with this. Musharraf, our faithful client, was forced by an indigenous movement with no clear external sponsor or benefactor to step down. Although Benazir Bhutto may not have been a great democrat, and certainly the PPP has its own issues; although the movement has, at least as far as the media coverage I've seen of it would have it, largely been led by members of the indigenous elite; this is obviously in stark opposition to the interests of the Imperium. So a nuclear-armed Pakistan is no longer acceptable, although it may be again in the future if the Pakistani elites currently in power can be co-opted. This, of course, is simply the latest expression of the difficulty that the Imperium has had with Pakista; if it hadn't been for 9/11, we may very well not have accepted Pakistan as we did.

India, on the other hand, shows no such difficulty. Furthermore, one suspects that it has a significant advantage, at least in the eyes of the administration; it's not an Islamic state. In fact, with the BJP gaining power lately (and the Bushistas love their religious fanatics), one might characterize it as an explicitly anti-Islamic state. We see the typical divide-and-rule game being played here; support one group of religious fanatics against another. Israel vs. various Salafists and Shi‘ah extremists, Salafists vs. Shi‘ah, Hindus vs. Muslims, etc. So obviously the Bushistas are hoping to curry favor with a group that they know won't traffic with the enemy.

But what else do they get out of it?