Jaswant Singh, India's foreign minister, almost shudders with distaste at the thought. He wants nothing so cheap as "a deal" with the US on the lifting of economic sanctions imposed as a result of India's nuclear test last May.

Instead, he says he is aiming for acceptance by Washington of India's claim to be a responsible nuclear power and its earnest desire not to get in the way of global non-proliferation efforts. Thereafter it is up to the US to lift the sanctions if it so wishes, but the hope remains that Washington will then enter a new era of close relations with the world's largest democracy.

Slight and soft-spoken, his physical presence masks a steely determination and the confidence of a well thought out position. It is difficult to imagine him losing his temper as he knots his bushy eyebrows together in patient search of the right formulation.

But his even temper must make some of the more raucous elements of the US Congress gnash their teeth in frustrated fury. He is not moved by their desire to punish India for last year's tests.

Diplomats say they now expect Mr. Singh's approach to win the day. Both sides know the risk of striking a definitive deal which could be torn apart by political critics at home.

Instead the effort now looks likely to be incremental with a gradual elimination of differences leading ultimately to a visit to the region by President Clinton, the first by a US President since Jimmy Carter in 1976. A start, some believe, could come quite soon with the lifting of restrictions on World Bank lending.

This is not to say that India is happy with the US tendency to set standards for others.

"Prescriptive statements telling India to do this, that and the other are counter-productive," he says. "We as India arrive at our commitments as national commitments." What has secured progress in the bilateral talks, is Washington's understanding of this view, he says, rather than any trade-offs involving shifts in intrinsic positions. India continues to argue that its posture on nuclear deployment will be passive - minimum deterrent, no arms trade, no first use, no use against non-nuclear states - and that it has an "impeccable" record on export controls.

It is willing to sign up to an enforceable treaty on fissile material production, which Mr. Singh argues is more effective that a non-verifiable unilateral declaration of intent to limit production. But it is not prepared to abandon its missile program, which does not go beyond the development of an advanced Agni medium-range missile, and it continues to believe that third party involvement in its dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir is counter-productive and destabilizing. "It would be a negative development if Pakistan were permitted to ride into the valley of Kashmir piggy-back on non-proliferation."

When the US chooses to lift sanctions is a matter for it to decide, he says. But he is encouraged by Washington's evident desire for a better relationship.

That said, Mr. Singh admits to an acute awareness of the challenge to India's own diplomacy posed by the tests. As an energy poor country, it needs to collaborate with others in the civilian nuclear field. The ability to reassure on the proliferation front is thus vitally important, especially since India - as a declared but not recognized nuclear state - cannot be part of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which governs exchanges of technology.