The rider was that Clinton had to have something concrete to show, which has not happened -- yet. This is no cause for despair. It was nobody's idea that the chill that descended on bilateral relations would be lifted in a short time or that India, having defied world opinion on its nuclear tests, would just crumble in subsequent negotiations without safeguarding its crucial interests.

What is important is that the government is earnestly engaged in talks with the US and is showing considerable flexibility. If this does not satisfy Washingtonit is because of a genuine divergence of interests, not Indian obduracy.

The cancellation of a visit which has been in the air for so long may be disappointing, but in fact it is probably best in the circumstances. Prime Minister Vajpayee was right to emphasise in New York that a US presidential visit after so long should take place in a positive atmosphere. As things stand, Bill Clinton would be embarrassed in visiting a country whose public views American economic sanctions with hostility. For India itself there are good reasons for not considering this a propitious time for a visit.

Governments like to do business with governments that are known to be in charge. In Bill Clinton's case, whether rightly or wrongly, his efficacy as President is in some doubt because of his travails following the Kenneth Starr report. It is true that Clinton will never again be the President that he was before the scandal broke even if he survives possible impeachment proceedings.

But it makes sense for a USpresidential visit to wait at least till he either survives this crisis, even if only to be left enervated by it, or is replaced. After all, the US administration itself applied the same logic when Clinton's proposed visit to India this February was put off until after the Indian elections. The idea, correctly, was that Clinton should not come and talk to a government that might soon be gone, as indeed it was. Likewise it is in New Delhi's interest to welcome a President it knows will still be there after a few months and has the authority to do business with it.

India has sensibly held out against making concessions to American demands in the ongoing talks only in order to clinch the visit. That is not sufficient prize for New Delhi, especially with a President whose authority to make big gestures is in doubt. The government was right to suggest that a presidential visit should be preceded by a lifting of sanctions. Happily, the authority has been granted to the American President to lift them after a yearon condition that the decision is ratified by the House and the Senate separately. For India this is a good aim to eye in its efforts to secure a US presidential visit in the near future.