Administration officials said the waiver would require "substantial progress" on the goals set forth by the UN Security Council Permanent Five (P-5) and the Group of Eight (G-8) in June.

The state department said that "by providing us authority, Congress has not mandated that all the sanctions be lifted or eased immediately nor is it the administration's intention to do so."

Assistant secretary of state for south Asia Karl Inderfurth, briefing south Asian correspondents here on Wednesday, rattled off a laundry list of steps New Delhi and Islamabad would have to take to receive any relief, even as he declared that "I don't want to get into a straitjacket in terms of defining what must be done" for the president to usethe waiver to lift sanctions.

"Signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) remains a key requirement for the administration to make any move towards removing the sanctions against India and Pakistan," he said.

"Also finding a formula for a moratorium on fissile material production, pending conclusion of the Geneva talks," is a necessary pre-condition, he added. "This is an important step to take because negotiations in Geneva may take several years and it will be very important to cease any further production now while those negotiations are moving forward," Inderfurth said.

Authorities in Washington, he said, "Also believe that both the countries should structure a restraint regime covering both nuclear weapons and their means of delivery in line with their statements on minimal deterrence."

In this regard, Inderfurth said, "We hope that they will move in a direction to better define minimal deterrence and also discuss it with each other."

"Clearly restraint must be a two-waystreet," he said, "and indeed, for India, a three-way street," apparently referring to New Delhi's security threat perceptions vis-a-vis Beijing. Inderfurth said the US was fully cognizant that "India has security concerns that go beyond its neighbours to the northwest," meaning Pakistan.

He said US deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott, who has held several rounds of high-level talks with Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's special emissary Jaswant Singh, "has told me that he is in this for the long haul and we are going to keep working on this."

Asked if he could elaborate on how long exactly that was because Talbott and Singh have already held five rounds and go into a sixth in November -- leading cynics to remark wryly using a pugilistic metaphor that it seems to be a 15-round bout -- Inderfurth said, "We do not believe that the long haul (can) be defined by the length of time it will take. (But) the long haul (can) be defined by working through the issues, which we think we are doingat a very good clip."

Inderfurth denied that the US kept moving the goal posts instead of reacting positively to the olive branch Vajpayee offered in his speech to the UN general assembly, indicating a willingness to sign the CTBT and not be an obstacle to the entry into force provision that expires next year. "We are absolutely not moving the goal posts," he emphasised. "There is nothing that we are asking today for India to consider that we were not asking when we were in discussion in June. The goal posts have remained the same."

Inderfurt said he found secretary of state Madeleine Albright to be "very pleased with the direction that this dialogue has taken and she is as hopeful as we all are that in the weeks ahead we will make the kind of progress that will allow the president's trip to go forward just as soon as possible."

Indian diplomatic sources, however, claimed, notwithstanding Inderfurth's assertions, that the goal posts were being moved. They said the "restraint regime" he was talkingabout was reminiscent of a few years ago when, on the urging of Islamabad, the US tried to impose a regional non-proliferation arrangement between India and Pakistan, with China as a sort of guarantor.

But Inderfurth claimed, "We are not trying to draw China into anything. We're not trying to be the midwives here, but we are encouraging the dialogue."

"We have encouraged China to speak directly with India about India's security concerns, which have been expressed very clearly," Inderfurth said.

Senior US Senators, including foreign relations committee chairman Jesse Helms, opposing the lifting of sanctions and restrictions on export of high-technology goods to India, Inderfurth declined comment saying "we will reply through the appropriate channels."

"(But) we are keeping members of Congress briefed on the direction that we are going and the progress we've achieved," he said. "I think to date the overall impressions in Congress are positive."

"But there is not the view that we have reached thatpoint of being able to to say the sanctions should be lifted," he said.

Another senior administration official said, "The Senators were basing their speculation perhaps on the same sources that lead some Indians now to think that we are changing the goal posts." "We are following a very responsible course of action. We have been very clear about what we think are the necessary benchmarks to be met through the process," he said.

Helms, senate majority leader Trent Lott and Senator John Kyl wrote to Clinton warning against any deal with India, particularly providing New Delhi with high-technology goods in return for its acquiescence in arms-control measures, including the CTBT.

They wrote, "In our view, an offer to lift sanctions and technology transfer barriers on India in return for these arms-control measures would be unwise." They said an Indian pledge to not "openly deploy" nuclear weapons would be unverifiable and would place few constraints on its nuclear programme.

The lawmakers warned thatunder such a deal, India would still be free to produce and stockpile nuclear weapons which could "be rapidly deployed when tensions rise." (IANS)