The implications of the nuclear agreement with India are much broader than the specific terms of the text. This represents an important diplomatic breakthrough with a country that has been ambivalent toward the West for decades.

The pact hints at the beginnings of a crucial strategic partnership — a relationship that could be especially important given the rise of China and the many questions surrounding Beijing’s military buildup.

The agreement, however, also raises serious questions regarding the spread of nuclear technology.

India never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It developed a nuclear bomb in secret.

Under the new pact reached in New Delhi, American nuclear reactor technology could be sold to India. Those transactions currently are not allowed under U.S. law.

As a result, Congress must agree before the accord can become a reality. Lawmakers should review the text with great care.

Under its terms, India would allow international oversight of 14 civilian nuclear-power facilities. Six other installations would be designated as military and would not be inspected. India would at least partially move within the regime of global nonproliferation.

Skeptics worry that making India an exception to the usual nonproliferation rules would make it tougher to curb nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

Yet there’s no evidence the nonproliferation pact has hindered the nuclear ambitions of those countries. Unlike India, North Korea signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It proceeded to develop bombs anyway.

The strategic goals of India and the United States overlap in several respects, most notably in the common concern over China’s long-term ambitions, and a common interest in battling Islamic terrorism.

In considering the agreement, Congress should give the greatest weight to the strategic benefits of warmer ties with the world’s largest democracy.