Hailed as the centerpiece of a new partnership between the worlds two most populous democracies, the U.S.-India nuclear deal has drifted dangerously since it was signed in 2008, analysts and former negotiators from both countries say. The risk now is that other countries, particularly Russia and France, might benefit from all the hard work that the United States put into the deal. The landmark agreement was supposed to allow the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel to India, even though the country has nuclear weapons but has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its advocates said it would bring tens of billions in business to the United States and create thousands of jobs, while also cementing a new partnership between the two nations to counter Chinas rise. American companies have not yet sold any reactors or equipment to India. American nuclear fuel firms, which face no legal or policy hurdles, have also not begun selling to India, Washington Post reported on Saturday. Indias enthusiasm for nuclear power has been dented by the Fukushima accident, and by problems in finding available land to build reactors. Meanwhile, onerous conditions imposed by Indias parliament on suppliers of nuclear equipment have tilted the playing field away from private-sector American companies in favor of state-owned companies from Russia and France, analysts say. You can see a possible outcome where the U.S. has expended most of the diplomatic capital, but companies in other countries are the main beneficiaries, said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security in Washington. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepares to visit India this week, the deals supporters hope she can reignite Indias enthusiasm to clear the remaining hurdles. The Obama administration has done everything it can to implement the agreement, said Ambassador Nicholas Burns, an undersecretary of state in the Bush administration who spent three years negotiating the agreement. The problem from my perspective is on the Indian side. We havent seen the same degree of political commitment to follow it through. So while General Electric and U.S.-based, Japanese-owned Westinghouse Electric sit on the sidelines, Frances Areva and Russias Rosatom are already moving ahead in inking deals to build reactors in India. In a sense, the stalling of the nuclear deal is indicative of a broader problem with the U.S.-India relationship, Burns and other U.S. analysts said, with Washington making most of the concessions and India seeming less engaged. President Obama has wooed India assiduously, for example supporting its bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. But there was enormous disappointment in Washington when India did not shortlist any U.S. companies when deciding on a major overhaul of its fleet of fighter planes earlier this year, a deal worth tens of billions of dollars that could have heralded a new era of defense cooperation. With its economy and its demand for energy growing rapidly, India wants to raise its nuclear power generating capacity from the current 5,000 megawatts a year to more than 60,000 megawatts by 2032. There are other hurdles, too. New Delhi has not yet given an assurance to Washington that Indian private companies will not re-transfer American nuclear technology and information to others, a requirement under U.S. law. And before India can buy American and French reactors, New Delhi also has to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement with Japan. Those reactors use parts and technology from Japan, which cannot be supplied until Japan changes its law to allow nuclear trade with India. The situation became more complicated last month when the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group in the Hague voted to bar access to sensitive uranium enrichment and reprocessing technology which can be used to make atomic bombs to countries that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2008, the group gave an exemption to India, but this new decision was seen in New Delhi as a sign it was still not trusted.