You cannot hear the hammers at work but repair work is in progress. The delicate but vital Indo-US relations is being patched up. It is not merely the ill-timed Iraq resolution that has necessitated this exercise. The relationship had plateaued off even in high-movement areas. Iraq is only the latest rap.

Fortunately, both countries are quick to recognise that fences need to be mended. The areas that need focused treatment are Pakistan and Iraq. The abrupt departure of US ambassador to India Robert Blackwill has reopened old grouses with the US State Department. Other outstanding areas include increased lobbying space in Washington, speeding up cooperation on the "holy trinity"-space, civilian nuclear energy and high technology-and engaging Washington on potentially thorny issues like India's cooperation with Iran. Delhi's primary concern now is how to deal with the hyper power without compromising core national interests. External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha set the trend by asking Parliament to abjure "compulsive hostility" against the US as this is not in India's interests.

A STEP AT A TIME: Sinha explained India's stance on Iraq to Powell (left)

On Pakistan, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has risen above the ministerial chatter on pre-emptive strikes against Pakistan with his peace offer. This diplomatic stroke has put the US to test on its promises to sit hard on Pakistan. It has ensured that US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's India visit beginning May 10 will be dominated not by India's stand on Iraq or pre-emption but by whether the US can get Pakistan to stop terrorism.

There is no escaping the fact, however, that the bulk of fence-mending will focus on the Iraq breach. After the spectacularly ill-timed parliamentary resolution, Indian officials have burned up the phone lines to Washington. India, they point out, did not criticise the US at the UN, prevented an anti-US resolution at NAM and diligently toed the middle path throughout the war. The resolution, when it came, not only did not affect the US, but was purely an expression of domestic sentiment.

In US think tanks, the mood is non-confrontational. Says James Noyes, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution: "We are so used to our own Congress moving resolutions that the Indian Parliament action does not surprise us. Given the colonial history, the action of political parties is understandable."

Both the US and the UK seem to have accepted the argument. Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal and National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra spared no efforts to convince Blackwill and British High Commissioner Rob Young. Now Mishra will be carrying the same message to Washington and to the Council for Foreign Relations which he is scheduled to address on May 7.

India's diplomatic exercise has a twofold objective: first, it wants to build up the pitch for reconstruction projects in a post-war Iraq, and second, it wants to rebuild bridges with the only lobby that matters in Washington, the neo-conservatives. It might prove less difficult than it seems. Though the resolution tied India to working in Iraq under the aegis of the UN, South Block has nuanced it to the extent that India can now use the World Food Programme or the World Bank label as a fig leaf. Besides, the private sector has been given free rein to secure any sub-contracts it can get. The thin end of the wedge will be a $20 million (Rs 95 crore) humanitarian package, including 50,000 tonnes of wheat. India will also be handling about $3 million in projects under the restarted UN Oil-for-Food programme. Says R.M. Abhyankar, secretary in the MEA: "It would place us in a position to contribute to the reconstruction process."

That claim is yet to become a reality. For the present, USAID is in charge of the reconstruction and has given out contracts only to large US firms like Halliburton and Bechtel. Indian companies can only try for sub-contracts. CII has asked about 50 companies (Hindustan Construction, L&T, Kirloskar, Ashok Leyland, among others) to register with USAID and launched an aggressive lobbying campaign. Narayan Keshavan, former executive director, Congressional Caucus on India, believes that "the best way to do this is for Indian firms to tie up with Indian-American companies. Unless Indian firms adopt creative approaches, India will once again be supplying 'coolies' for projects in Iraq."

Re-engaging the neo-conservative lobby in Washington will, however, require some creative diplomacy. Members of Republican think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, and the likes of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld within the George W. Bush Administration, were in favour of India playing a role in the new strategic order. These were the same people who supported the war in Iraq and India's stand has been disappointing, to say the least.

Another issue that requires careful handling is India's burgeoning relationship with Iran. The US has asked India to explain the contours of this relationship. Delhi argues there is nothing in its ties with Teheran that Washington need be afraid of.

India is happy to reiterate its size and history as a measure of its importance, but it will take several bold policy steps to stave off the danger of falling off the radar screens of the decision-makers in Washington. As a State Department official says, "Few India-specific issues, apart from a possible war with Pakistan, land on Condi's (National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice) table. This has to change."

And therein lies India's thorniest challenge. To work with a State Department that is openly hyphenated, mostly in favour of Pakistan, is a trial. An assistant secretary of state, Christina Rocca, fast replacing Robin Raphel as the resident demon-Rocca was the author of the infamous State Department statement after Nadimarg advocating a dialogue-and the absence of an ambassador who often used his personal connections in the White House to outrun State Department's glacial pace on Indo-US issues will require all the skill South Block can muster.

These issues ceasing to matter depends on the commercial juice in the relationship. A lot needs to be done on the reforms front to rid the relations of their "flat-as-a-chapati" tag. According to Danielle Pletka, vice-president, Foreign and Defence Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute, "The US has always seen the relationship through the prism of counter to China, Russia and relations with Pakistan. There is a need to look on bilateral relationship with the focus on economics." India and the US have crested the Iraq "bump" but the road ahead requires closer companionship.

— with Anil Padmanabhan in New York