But when Strobe Talbott and Jaswant Singh, top interlocutors from the two countries for nuclear issues meet here over dinner on Sunday night, they will be hoping to pull relations between the two largest democracies in the world out of a dead end it has been run into, particularly following India's nuclear tests in May.

It's unusual enough to have such a crucial meeting at the residence of the Ambassador, but it is almost unthinkable - or rather un-American - that it should take place on a Sunday. In these parts, Sunday is a day to mow the lawn and do the laundry.

Indeed, there is plenty of overgrowth to be cleared - except that in doing this quietly over three rounds of talks (this is the fourth) the two sides have been careful not to clean their dirty laundry in public. Both sides have made a fetish of secrecy about talks that arewidely acknowledged to be very, very sensitive.

So much so that diplomatic historians must already be licking their lips about the declassification of the notes some 30 years later. Besides, so important are these talks with India, and later Pakistan, considered - `make or break' is a phrase that has been heard frequently - that even James Foley, a laconic spokesman of the State Department, was moved to describe them as "critical meetings."

"We hope... that both India and Pakistan would consider and be prepared to make forward steps in the direction of the international community's agenda for diffusing the situation caused by the nuclear explosions in South Asia in recent months," Foley said at his briefing on Friday, waving the American agenda.

Well, no one is betting on it. From all accounts, Singh and Talbott have struck an exceptional rapport, but there is still plenty of ground to be covered, say diplomats and experts who are close to the situation and are familiar with only the broad contours ofthe secret talks.

They say New Delhi has agreed in principle to accede to the two principal US demands of signing the test ban treaty and participating in negotiations to ban production of fissile material, but it is still seeking various assurances and guarantee. The US is unwilling to make any pledges, sticking to its stand of seeking unconditional agreements.

To beat their way out of this deadlock, the two sides agreed to put their respective stands on paper and much of this week's talks will focus on discussing this and narrowing the differences.

Although there is some buzz about a possible announcement following the formal delegation level talks on Monday, officials said such a possibility was remote. "Even if we come to an agreement it has to be ratified by the government in New Delhi," one Indian official said. US officials too said they did not expect anything dramatic to happen.

Strangely, the officialdom on both sides is more optimistic than the community of policy wonks, particularly the USacademia specialising in South Asia. The general feeling is that there are still too many hawks on both sides to permit any dramatic movement. "There are disarmament purists here who don't want to concede anything to India. And there are people out there in India who want to break free of the United States and chart their own course. I think nothing will come out of it, but I hope I am wrong," a long time South Asia expert who is also familiar with the mood in the White House and the State Department said gloomily, adding, "If the dinner diplomacy does not go well, there is a bad Indian restaurant just up the road in Cleveland Park."

Other analysts say a deal is very much in the works, but it depends on how leaders on both sides can sell it to their critics. If the US as much as agrees to give India an inch - and more of that inch soon - President Clinton will have to deal with the proliferation hawks in the Congress and even within the administration.

"The President has an open mind on this. He is quitewilling to make adjustments," a South Asia maven who has spoken to him and is familiar with White House thinking said. Indian officials too admit that ultimately it will all boil down to how Prime Minister Vajpayee can market the deal to skeptics, especially in a situation charged with partisan politics where any deal will be seen as a sell out to the United States.

And what is the "inch" that India is seeking that the US is so reluctant to give? Those familiar with the situation say much of the talks is focused on the Indian position of having a "minimum credible deterrence." US officials want to know what is "minimum" - 50 weapons? 500 weapons? They also want to know what constitutes "credible" - will India weaponise? Will the weapons be deployed? And what exactly does deployment entail? And finally, what is India's theory of deterrence all about?

"There is a lot of detail. There is still a long way to go," said one official familiar with the broad contours of the exchanges.

Singh is also slated tomeet the new energy secretary designate Bill Richardson and the Deputy Sec of Defence John Hamre, following his talks with Talbott. While Richardson was a key player - who incidentally felt betrayed by the BJP government when it conducted the nuclear tests - and Singh calling on him is ostensibly aimed at soothing the wounds, the meeting with the DOD official points to a deeper relationship that New Delhi will be seeking with Washington as part of an overall deal.