In a landmark hearing on the Hill before the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee that deals with the region, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Karl Inderfurth, specifically sought waivers on the Glenn, Symington and Pressler laws so that the US could deal ``equally'' with India and Pakistan. This unusual display of American ``even-handedness'' appeared to be primarily aimed at bailing out Pakistan from its precipitous economic downslide. While Inderfurth told the committee as much, his predication that both countries needed to be hurt equally by the sanctions left many perplexed.

Asked later how the US could take such a stand when one country's economy waslarger, it was handled more prudently, and its fundamentals were stronger, Inderfurth said he did not mean it ``in that sense''. But before the sub-committee chaired by Senator Brownback, he justified seeking waivers to overcome any negative and unintended consequences to a specific sanction, ``such as impending financial collapse leading to economic chaos and political instability.''

``We also would like additional flexibility to guard against an overwhelmingly disproportionate effect of the sanctions on one country verses another,'' he told the sub-committee.

The latest tack by the administration seemed to acknowledge that the current nuclear imbroglio in the sub-continent could not be sorted out without carrots. Give us the authority of waivers, and we will show you results, was the general message from the executive to the Congress.

Judging by the response from the Senators, the lawmakers appear inclined to provide some waivers to the administration. Bills and amendments to this effect are in theworks and are expected in the coming days.

At a policy level, in one of the more significant admissions, Inderfurth acknowledged that Washington was more realistic about expectations from the region because of the respective security concerns of the two countries, indicating that a defence-oriented security paradign may be more salable in the sub-continent than one marked by hardball non-proliferation concerns.

Asked by Senator Charles Robb about commitments from India and Pakistan to avoid missile testing, Inderfurth said ``We must be realistic about what we can ask the two countries to do... they have been candid about what they can and cannot do. Certain developments (like missile testing) will go ahead.''

Inderfurth however offered a firm commitment to the lawmakers that the administration would not use any Presidential waiver till they saw ``substantial progress'' on Washington's non-proliferation objectives, which consisted of the usual checklist -- signing CTBT, negotiating the fissile materialcut-off treaty etc.

The official in fact said Washington would not lift sanctions nor would entertain consideration of a presidential visit to the region until it saw some response to the US objectives. Inderfurth also offered several significant clarifications to assuage the feelings in New Delhi over some recent diplomatic misunderstandings. In one important elucidation, he said the US did not mean to bequeath a mediatory role to China in India-Pakistan affairs. But China should be involved in direct discussions with India given the differences between Beijing and New Delhi.

Both the Senators and Inderfurth said they had heard an ``earful'' from New Delhi about the US bringing in China as an arbiter in South Asia and acknowledged that such a policy was not fair on India which had differences with China.

The official also sought to palliate New Delhi's agitation about the recent diplomatic movements on Kashmir by saying ``international attention is not international mediation.'' He said theinternational community could not solve the Kashmir problem for Pakistan and the two countries would have to solve it in a bilateral framework.