The Countdown Begins

Shammi, Nasah, Eklavya

You may also want to read ``Business Recorder``

It may lead to a deeper understanding of the kinds of structural changes Mr. Musharraf and his team are implementing.

In a year or so you find that these very same structural changes will find resonance in India.

Why, because they are necessary to help the State evolve. the structure of the state and the way in which the citizen relates, interacts with state is being changed, modernized.

Mr. Musharraf and his team can be seen as DODO, but what is the point of the proberial cursing of the darkness, Mr. Musharraf and his team are doing the heavy lifting that the civilian politicans have avoided for a decade. When his work is done, he will be gone, leaving a viable political and economic structure. Please do consider that he and his team are implementing reforms for which a considerable constituency exist. It is a mistake to see Mr. Musharraf and his team from the prism of radical Liberal ideology and conclude that he is the destroyer of democracy, it is his stated goal to save it.

You will see, in a year or two, the very same reforms will take place in India, the difference will be politicians who are willing to tell the Indian nation that these reforms are for the good of the nation and the state. Let us see how Indians will respond to notions of increasing the tax base, legitimizing and documenting the majority of the economy, disinvesting the State of the enterprises and subsidies.

Dear hamidm:

You`re exactly right:

``nawab sharif`s government, in spite of all its petty excesses, was still better than anything that the generals can hope to produce``.

Indeed it WAS BETTER than this strange anomaly called Army Dictatorship.

A strange creature -- an extinct DODO bird -- resurrected amidst the political flora fauna of the normal democratic world of the 21st century.

Do we find this DODO (Destroyer of Democracy) anywhere else except in Pakistan?

In a democracy when any political party gets elected with a two third majority it can do anything it wants to do and it will still be democratic and legal.

Just imagine if in USA, tomorrow, the Republican right-wingers are elected with two third majority in both Senate and Congress topped with a Republican right-winger President in the White House, what kind of havoc they would wreak on the political landscape of the United States for decades to come -- from the Supreme Court judiciary to the Justice Department -- from warmongering to the abolition of dept of education -- from the human rights abuses to taking away women’s rights -- from evangelization of the schools to book burnings -- yet all that will be legal and democratic.

Of course it couldn’t last for more than 2 to 4 years until the rascals will be thrown out -- by the US PUBLIC -- through another ELECTION – NOT by the United States Army.

Anybody having information on the corrupt activities of Mr. Rasheed Ahmed, Chairman Pilcorp

(Pakistan Industrial Leasing Corporation Limited)

is requested to post all details on the internet

and also communicate the same on the NAB site.

His inventory of plots in defense and cantonment, and sales transaction of these plots is known to us + some of his funds transfers. Information about his deposits overseas would be a great help in roping in this rascal and black sheep.

Individuals whose careers he screwed are pacifically invited to assist in this investigation. We dont keep grudges - we get even.

Nasah:

I agree. DAWN, indeed, is a very good paper and its Opinion staff one of the best. It is head and shoulders above any other English language Pakistani publication.

re: nasah # 34

Man, I agree whole-heartedly. I would also add the name of Ardeshir Cowasjee.

Dawn is one of those newspapers all of us South Asians can be proud of.

I forgot to mention the acknoledgment:

The two great columns by the two great Pakistani columnists were published in the one great Pakistani paper, DAWN.

Bless you DAWN.

With Pakistani columnists like Irfan Husain, Ayaz Amir, and a paper like DAWN, Pakistan will NEVER become a ``failed State``.

...... mushahid hussain is getting what he deserves - he should be tarred and feathered and paraded on a donkey ...BUT...... the principle that ANY elected government is better than the goons in khaki is still true ....... nawab sharif`s government, inspite of all its petty excesses, was still better than anything that the generals can hope to produce ........ and yes, we love the motorway and, thanks to shahbaz sharif, lahore definitely has better roads than detroit and delhi ........and please, let`s not talk about dr. ata and his clown act ....... maybe one day, after he has completed a thousand days of penance, mushahid hussain can join omar asghar, razak dawood and shaukat aziz in a cabinet headed by the mahdi ( or an adult ylh ) ...... maybe allah will rethink his khatm-i-nabowat decision

dear asfand:

Thanks for quoting the BJP Dharma business. It has a familiar ring to it.

Now here is your quote from a BJP Dharmatma:

``Let us understand very clearly that Dharma is not necessarily with the majority or with the people. Dharma is eternal. Therefore. in the definition of democracy to say that it is a government of the people. It is not enough, it has to be for the good of the people. What constitutes the good of the people. Dharma alone can decide. Therefore, a democratic Government ``Jana Rajya`` must also be rooted in Dharma i.e. a ``Dharma Rajya``. In the definition of `Democracy` viz. ``government of the people, by the people and for the people``, of stands for independence, `by` stands for democracy and `for` Indicates Dharma. Therefore, the true democracy is only where there is freedom as well as Dharma encompasses all these concepts.``

Now here is the same paragraph that could be from the other side of the divide, by an Iranian Ayatollah substituted with just one word, ISLAM:

``Let us understand very clearly that ISLAM is not necessarily with the majority or with the people. ISLAM is eternal. Therefore. in the definition of democracy to say that it is a government of the people. It is not enough, it has to be for the good of the people. What constitutes the good of the people. ISLAM alone can decide. Therefore, a democratic Government ``Awami Hukoomut`` must also be rooted in ISLAM i.e. an ``Islamic Hukoomut``. In the definition of `Democracy` viz. ``government of the people, by the people and for the people``, of stands for independence, `by` stands for democracy and `for` Indicates ISLAM. Therefore, the true democracy is only where there is freedom as well as ISLAM encompasses all these concepts.``

The pathetic BJP/RSS militant fundos are nothing but cheap imitators of equally pathetic, Islamic Talibani/Irani, fundos. Little difference. Isn’t funny they can speak exactly the same language - yet hate each other.

``mai aik hee paayee meeley paimaney bahut sey``

``The spirit of Southall

By Irfan Husain

Visiting London at a time when race riots are rife, and the newspapers are still referring darkly to pitch invasions by supporters of the Pakistani cricket team, it was natural to expect a certain amount of tension in racially mixed areas.

So it was a pleasant surprise to go to Southall, the ultimate example of a South Asian-dominated suburb.

I was there last twenty years ago when friends took us for a desi dinner. With its loud filmi music, its almost exclusively subcontinental faces and accents, and its spicy aromas, I understood why my son Shakir, then five years old, asked if we were back in Lahore. Since then, I have not been tempted to return for the reason so many Indians and Pakistanis go there: authentic desi food.

On my short visits to London, I prefer to check out the latest Italian and French restaurants.

But as it`s the mango season and the only mangoes I have found in Kensington are inferior African and Mexican varieties, I thought we would get the genuine articles from Southall.

So off we went on a warm Sunday mid-morning, following signs until we reached a bazaar scene straight out of the subcontinent. The vibrant colours, the loud music and the unique, mouth-watering smells of curries cooking were light years away from the bland, strait-laced British streets one normally walks through. In terms of atmosphere, I might easily have been in Karachi`s Saddar area, or Lahore`s old city.

However, the contrasts with the subcontinent soon became apparent: the streets, despite the crowds and the cacophony, were very clean; there were no beggars; and, above all, there were at least as many women as there were men, and nobody ogled them or made obnoxious remarks.

There was very little swagger or male macho on display. People shopped, ate at the many restaurants and generally went about their business without pushing, shoving or being unpleasant in any way.

Another major difference was the presence of so many communities in a relatively small area.

There were Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims shopping peacefully side by side; there were even a few token white and black Brits. Nobody was hassling anybody as we made our way up the main street.

The shops carried signs with names indicative of all the faiths practised in South Asia, and impartially drew customers from every region.

To complete this picture of ethnic diversity, there was even a (Halal) Chinese menu at the Punjab Karahi Centre we entered for lunch.

I thought we had been very clever by bringing a couple of cans of beer with us, but when I asked the waiter if we could open them, he whispered he would move us to a corner table if we were under a `compulsion to have a drink. I assured him there was no such `compulsion`, and got on with the business of ordering lunch. The nihari, the saag-gosht and the kebabs were all absolutely authentic, as was the lassi.

Outside the Punjab Karahi Centre stood a splendid Karachi bus decked out in bright colours and mythical beasts and shiny metal bits. passers-by gaped at it, and has themselves photographed standing next to this fine example of Pakistani folk art. The manager informed me that it had been driven to Turkey and shipped from there; it was used to transport baraats at weddings and was often hired for birthday parties.

We next bought a couple of kilos each of excellent chausa and sindhri mangoes for 10 pounds - hardly extravagant when considering their quality and transport costs. Finally, we bought some superb gulab jamans and gajar ka halwa from the Ambala Sweet House.

On our way home, we talked about how a microcosm of the best of the subcontinent had been so successfully created thousands of miles away.

For centuries, serious travellers and casual tourists have remarked on the marvellous cultural mosaic that invasions, conquests and migrations have created in South Asia.

The ethnic mix there is probably richer and more varied than in any comparable land mass, and apart from occasional religious and language riots triggered by chauvinistic individuals and parties, the different elements of the subcontinental mosaic have lived in relative peace and harmony.

This balance was disturbed by the system of separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims introduced by the British nearly a century ago, and this policy found its logical conclusion in the partition of 1947.

Since then, the forces of intolerance and chauvinism have gained ground in both India and Pakistan. They are far stronger in Pakistan as the latter was created in the name of religion, and despite the early secularizing influence of Mr Jinnah, its founding father, it has gone down the path of fundamentalism and enforced homogenization.

We have thus robbed ourselves of the happy medley of cultures and influences that enriched and informed our lives until not very long ago.

By trying to impose a rigidly uniform vision of Islam and an alien Middle Eastern culture on a basically multi- religious, multi-ethnic South Asian society, we have destroyed many of the threads that made up the fabric of a once-rich, vibrant and creative culture.

More and more, we define ourselves by our ``un-Indianess``, and in doing so, we hack away at our cultural roots.

And yet as my brief visit to Southall showed me, there is no fundamental problem in South Asians of different faiths living, working and praying next to each other.

Whether our political and religious leaders like it or not, the commonalties between the various communities of South Asia far outnumber the differences.

Unfortunately, over five decades of politically generated hostility and poisonous propaganda have taken their toll of tolerance and understanding on both sides of the border.

Two generations of brainwashed Indians and Pakistanis have grown up to blindly mistrust and even hate each other.

Nevertheless, these same young men and women become fast friends AWAY from the corrosive passions of the subcontinent.

Clearly, fifty-odd years of history cannot be forgotten or wished away. But if these wasted years are to serve any purpose, we need to draw lessons from them if we are not to be condemned to making the same mistakes.

The most important lesson is that it takes more than an artificially drawn line across the map to obliterate our rich cultural heritage.

The history of the subcontinent is one of religious conversions, inter-faith marriages and inter-cultural mingling on a vast scale.

To pretend that any part of this region is religiously or culturally `pure` is to delude oneself.

Finally, if South Asia is to play its rightful role on the world stage, its leaders have to remember there is great strength in diversity.

General Musharraf and Mr Vajpayee would do well to keep the SOUTHALL MODEL before them when they sit down to talk next week.``

God Bless you, Irfan Husain.

``A fresh line in cosmetics

By Ayaz Amir

If a college of cynics, duly certified as a professional body by its examiners, had been charged with the task to write a primer on how not to prepare for a summit, it could not have bettered the script followed by General Musharraf and his team of advisers.

Everyone and his uncle have been called for consultations with General Musharraf. There in the mock-ornate setting of the Prime Minister`s House (which Pakistan`s supreme ruler uses for his office) Pakistan Television`s captive audience has been treated evening after evening to shots of the general listening serious-eyed to his various callers regarding the line to take in the summit with Mr Vajpayee.

In the last few days no one could have been more free with press and TV interviews than the general. Is he hoping to conquer Agra with this media blitz? Are we getting ready for a circus or a serious round of talks?

Talking endlessly about the core issue is fine for a domestic audience. But it is doubtful whether it can have much effect on India.

In any case, it doesn`t hurt to keep things in perspective. Can we make the ground shift from under Mr Vajpayee`s feet? What leverage have we at our disposal to make India share our perceptions on Kashmir? To suppose even for a foolish moment that any serious plans about settling the Kashmir issue will be floated in Agra--Chenab formula or whatever--is to live in a wonderland of our own creation.

On offer at Agra will be a new range of cosmetics, or rather an old line of cosmetics wrapped in fresh paper: trade, travel, easing of visa restrictions, and the like. In other words, makeup or, at best, plastic surgery. No more. Not that in displaying this range India would be guilty of any particular deviousness. There is little we can do to change its marketing strategy.

Yes, India would like militancy to die down in Kashmir. Yes, a Kashmir on the boil hinders India`s march to great power status. Even so, we don`t exactly have India on the mat. As such we cannot wring from it any major concession. This is not rocket science but simple common sense. If Gen Musharraf`s planners are choosing to see it in a different light that`s their problem.

Ladies of fashion or beauty who are used to attention take compliments (and even passes) in their stride. In response to the Vajpayee invitation the Musharraf government has simply gone overboard.

Its tremulous state of excitement has been evident in the build-up to the summit--a build-up out of sync with what is on offer. If the mood in the Chief Executive`s office had been a trifle more restrained, expectations could have been pitched low, in which case even old perfume in new bottles could have counted as an achievement. With expectations pitched unrealistically high, the danger is that a sense of frustration and disillusionment could set in if no tangible progress is made on Kashmir.

It is no good saying amidst the hoopla and noise that we expect nothing dramatic from the summit. The build-up itself, and the CE`s relentless consultations and interviews, tell a different story. Mr Abdul Sattar will have a job on his hands once the pageantry is over. Having to look serious (not a difficult task for him) he will have to read deep and portentous meaning into the slim offerings at Agra. Unless of course the talks are to be blasted as a failure and India accused of intransigence. Which is unlikely, given the overall climate which is not conducive to such histrionics.

Not that India-Pakistan relations do not stand in need of a facelift. They do indeed. We need more trade and travel and other forms of exchange to lower the barriers of hostility and mistrust between us.

But while doing so, and making the best of a bad job, there is no need to fool ourselves. While we have a position on Kashmir-- and perish the thought we should ever abandon it--we lack the means to change the status quo to our advantage.

Nor is it likely that India will give away on the negotiating table what we have failed to wrest from it on the battlefield.

That Kashmir is disputed territory, its disputed status underwritten by UN resolutions, is not something writ on water but a fact carved in stone.

If the people of Kashmir do not want to have any truck with India, or if they want to strike out on their own, who are we to sell them down the river?

But at the same time no discernible purpose is served by remaining locked in a state of permanent hostility with India.

For our sake, if not India`s, we need to come out of the mental trenches of the past.

Trade will benefit both countries and perhaps Pakistan more than India. And reducing the burden of militarization will allow scarce resources to be put to more productive uses.

That is, if on both sides of the divide, the national security establishments which have a vested interest in the continuation of hostility permit such an outcome to emerge.

Look at the subcontinent`s poverty and then consider the pretensions on parade. The two things are a world apart.

A thousand hard-liners, however, from the comfort of their armchairs can be heard declaiming that peace and cooperation with India while the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved is an unthinkable proposition.

Why?

China`s unalterable claim to Taiwan does not stop it from having profitable links with Taiwan. Just as Hong Kong`s being a British colony did not prevent China from having extensive contacts with it.

Japan has never given up its claim to the four Northern Islands captured by Soviet troops at the end of the Second World War but that does not stop it from engaging with Russia in other spheres.

Why can`t we be similarly pragmatic? Why should sensible relations with India be considered tantamount to the loss of national manhood?

Let us overcome our internal problems, let us attain political stability and build a strong Pakistan.

Let us trade with India and try to reduce our absurd arms expenditure. And at the same time let us remain faithful to our position on Kashmir.

These three aims are not contradictory. Statesmanship lies not in playing zero-sum games (either/or) but in relating national goals to national strength.

Such a definition of statesmanship, however, flows from a calm way of looking at things.

The circus atmosphere allowed to grow around the Musharraf visit is the exact opposite of this mood.

What we are expecting from India regarding Kashmir is related more to our wishes than to the facts on the ground. When India does not accede to our wishfulness will we relapse into sullenness or seek refuge in false interpretations?

But caveats apart, let us count our blessings.

The momentum generated by this visit is all for the good for even fanfare and empty pageantry have their uses. After this visit, even if nothing else is achieved, it will not be easy for either side to revert that quickly to the rhetoric of the past.

Meanwhile, an important point worth remembering is about the peace clothes General Musharraf is wearing to India. They represent an enduring and not a passing phenomenon.

Musharraf`s foremost priority is consolidating his rule and giving it a democratic face-lift, plastic surgery being the rage in Pakistan as much as in India. For achieving this aim he has to be more politician than soldier.

Small wonder then if from the various corps headquarters right down to monitoring teams in the districts an intense effort is underway to choose the right kind of district nazims for the August 2 election.

There is nothing surreptitious about this process. Generals and brigadiers are openly telling candidates as to who is on board and who is not. General Musharraf has promised to devolve power to the grassroots.

Whether this promise is kept or not, grassroots interference by the army of the kind now being seen is a first for Pakistan.

This is democracy army-style and the sounds it is conveying are the birth pangs of a new Convention League to act as civilian handmaiden to another military strongman.

It is for outsiders--those who accuse Pakistan of adventurism-- to draw their own conclusions.

With the army leadership engaged in these political manoeuvres, it should be obvious to anyone that the army`s agenda is peace not war. There can be no better augury for the Agra summit.

I found this on BJP website today. Very interesting reading. This is an excerpt from Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya who was one of the founding member of BJP. With this thinking I do not think Kashmir solution can be solved.

``Here in our country the situation in this regard is very much like old Hindu marriages where a married couple could not divorce even if both the parties wished. The principle was that their behavior should be regulated not by their sweet will but by Dharma. The same is case with the nation. If the four million people of Kashmir say that they want to secede, if the people of Goa say they want to secede, some say they want the Portuguese to return, all this is against Dharma. Of the 45 million people of India. even if 449,999,999 opt for something which is against Dharma, even then this does not become truth. On the other hand, even if a person stands for something which is according to Dharma, that constitutes truth because truth resides with Dharma. It is the duty of this one person that he tread the path of truth and change people. It is from this basis that persons drives the right to proceed according to Dharma.

Let us understand very clearly that Dharma is not necessarily with the majority or with the people. Dharma is eternal. Therefore. in the definition of democracy to say that it is a government of the people. It is not enough, it has to be for the good of the people. What constitutes the good of the people. Dharma alone can decide. Therefore, a democratic Government ``Jana Rajya`` must also be rooted in Dharma i.e. a ``Dharma Rajya``. In the definition of `Democracy` viz. ``government of the people, by the people and for the people``, of stands for independence, `by` stands for democracy and `for` Indicates Dharma. Therefore, the true democracy is only where there is freedom as well as Dharma encompasses all these concepts.``

Asfand Siddiqui

Sacramento CA

SameerJB:

Quick question. It seems obvious that you are from West Punjab, and seem to know a bit of the area. Are you familiar with Chakwal, more specifically a village called Bhaun? Nobody seems to have heard about it, except one refernce to it in a column by Ayaz Amir, who I believe is from Chakwal. Does this place still exist??

SameerJB

`Sir, your government was better than current one on every count except for Shariaat Bill which is perhaps going to be matched by current rulers by Hisba sh/t in collaboration with the knigs party (PML-QA-JI-Sunni groups).`

Would you elaborate a little more on that?

SameerJB:

Do you like Nawaz, Mushahid & Co. becoz they are Punjabi ? I`m just curious, I can`t understand why you would want these guys back or why your`re so supportive of them, when theres always hope for better leaders. I`m not saying that Musharraf is better, or worse for that matter - I don`t know.

I just don`t get it. Do you like the motorway alot ? Did you like the yellow cab scheme ?

You also say the Mush. was the very best information minister we have had and something about him being a measure of performance going forward. Surely you are delusional or the other interactors and columnists mentioned in the interactions are way off.

There is a huge disparity between your level of support and other`s assesment. I can`t understand it.

Peace.

To all that have ``admired`` my dissenting views,
I always like to give people a second look and
resist the temptation to join the ``Qasai Culture``
that blames everyone ELSE for Pakistan`s predicament.
Here is another perfect example from Pakistan Link today. Please read it carefully at:

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2001/July/13/06.html

Ras

``In the shadow of the valley of despair

By Mahir Ali

It would be unrealistic to harbour expectations of a substantive breakthrough during General Pervez Musharraf`s visit to India this weekend, although there is little harm in hoping otherwise. It would be equally unwise to pretend that the summit is doomed to insignificance, either because New Delhi and Islamabad are irreconcilably far apart on all issues that matter, or because the Pakistan team will be led by an unrepresentative leader.

Judging by his decision to assume the presidential mantle, the latter factor has been weighing on General Musharraf`s mind. It is, however, hard to say how his status has in any way been enhanced through a titular change also favoured by previous military rulers. Chief executive was, admittedly, a somewhat silly and overly corporate designation, albeit a trifle less embarrassing than the nomenclature favoured by his predecessors. But it is not easy to interpret the ostensible elevation either as a setback or as progress in any meaningful sense. Rafiq Tarar`s presence in the presidency amounted to precious little, nor could anything particularly benign be deduced from the fact that parliaments were hitherto in suspension, given that restoration of the status quo ante has never been on General Musharraf`s agenda.

That said, it would obviously have been better in innumerable ways for Pakistan to be represented by an elected leader. It is a misfortune that both the leaders we elected in the interregnum between one bout of military rule and the next are at present in exile. Their harsh comeuppance is at least partly their own fault. However, the abuse of democracy does not necessarily justify army take-overs: General Musharraf`s coup against Nawaz Sharif may have been greeted with jubilation, but it was nonetheless a tragedy for Pakistan.

It is supremely unfortunate that civilian political institutions have been unable to acquire the sort of maturity that could pre-empt peremptory military action. It will be interesting to see whether the promised restoration of representative rule in October next year will be accompanied by measures aimed at addressing the pitfalls that democracy has thus far been prone to. A word of caution is perhaps called for: institutionalizing a role for the armed forces in the governance of the nation would be a grave error.

Like many other nations, Pakistan needs more democracy, not less. It also requires a higher degree of answerability - but to the people, not the GHQ.

It may well be the case that India will be less inclined to thrash out any long-term agreement with a leader whose constituency consists exclusively of the men in khaki (and camouflage). But it is worth remembering that no such agreement is on the table. And even if General Musharraf`s fraternizing with the Indian leadership yields nothing more than an unusual degree of goodwill, it will be a small but important step in the right direction.

Our relations with India have been so comprehensively fraught for so long that any sign of a thaw deserves to be welcomed. Simla was a milestone, not least because it occurred just a few months after the neighbours had fought their third war and Pakistan was still licking its wounds after the Indian-assisted secession of Bangladesh. Nearly two decades later, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s daughter and Indira Gandhi`s son were believed to have struck a rapport when the latter visited Islamabad for a SAARC summit, but neither of them survived in power for very long. Mr Sharif appeared to have achieved at least as much when Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Lahore in 1999, but shortly afterwards the two nations nearly went to war yet again over Kashmir.

Mr Sharif subsequently sought to create the impression that the armed infiltration from the Pakistani side had been orchestrated by the military without his knowledge. General Musharraf has dismissed that version of events as a fantasy, but the Indian attitude towards him will depend to a certain extent on the degree to which his denial is believed in New Delhi.

Dredging up the past, it must be acknowledged, does not necessarily illuminate the least treacherous path ahead. But recognizing the follies and foibles of yesteryear would unquestionably clear the air, making a new beginning possible. Both India and Pakistan have a great deal to come clean about. The past 54 years have been filled with manoeuvres and machinations, not many of which had anything to do with seeking a brighter future for the people of Kashmir.

Pakistan`s indiscretions have included three disastrous military incursions into Kashmir - in 1947, 1965 and 1999 - the first of which apparently led to Maharaja Hari Singh signing the document of accession to India.

There is, of course, considerable logic in the argument that as a Muslim-majority state, Jammu and Kashmir ought to have been a part of Pakistan. However, the Congress and the Muslim League had both agreed to the undemocratic proviso that the rulers of princely states would have the right to decide which way to go.

Pakistan should also stop denying that it has over the decades been arming and training militants for attacks inside Indian territory - the ``moral support`` excuse has never been sufficiently credible. On the other hand, India ought to drop the pretence that the separatist impulse is exclusively an imported item. It would have been impossible for militancy to flourish in a hostile milieu - and conditions conducive to it have been created to a large extent by what could be seen as military occupation. The ``special status`` conferred on Jammu and Kashmir at the outset acquired negative connotations long ago. It is self-deluding on India`s part to suggest that the state`s only ``problem`` is Pakistan.

Then again, harping on the plebiscite tune, as has consistently been Pakistan`s wont, serves little purpose. Not because a democratic decision on their future by the people of Kashmir is anything to be scoffed at. It should remain the ultimate aim, but a great deal of water - but, hopefully, no more blood - will have to flow under the bridge before it can come to pass.

An ideal solution to the dispute would involve a thoroughgoing demilitarization of the region on both sides of the Line of Control, followed by the dismantlement of the Line and the establishment of an interim administration under the joint jurisdiction of India and Pakistan, overseen, if necessary, by the United Nations. If the arrangement works in the short run and facilitates the return to Kashmir of all displaced persons, the next sensible step would be a referendum, under UN auspices, on the territory`s future, with independence guaranteed by Islamabad and New Delhi being among the options on the ballot paper.

Once progress towards such an objective is discernibly set in motion, accompanied by a palpable decrease in the degree of antagonism, India and Pakistan should be able to reach out to each other in various other spheres. Unrestricted trade between the neighbours would, by and large, benefit both. Encouraging tourism would be advantageous not only in economic but also in political terms: face-to-face contact under hospitable circumstances remains the best means of dissipating suspicions and hostility.

A distinct improvement in the bilateral climate would enable both sides to contemplate slashing their defence budgets - which could prove at least as mutually beneficial as the opening of new trade routes. The ultimate goal in this respect ought to be the denuclearization of the subcontinent: not because of the patently false superpower argument that some nations have the inherent right to be more equal than others in this respect (as in many others), but because nuclear weaponry is per se an evil that South Asia`s billion-strong population can well do without.

None of this can be achieved at the talks between General Musharraf and Mr Vajpayee. It is likely to prove elusive even in the considerably longer run. But even relatively non-controversial confidence-building measures would be a hopeful sign - provided they are recognized by both sides as a beginning rather than as an end in themselves.

So, notwithstanding his dictatorial status, let our good wishes accompany General Musharraf on his maiden presidential journey abroad. And let us hope that he and his elected Indian counterparts will be able to exude goodwill during their conversations, and come away from the talks with open minds.

The unfortunate history of relations between India and Pakistan gives one cause to suspect - nay, fear - that even such a limited goal may prove out of reach in the days ahead. But nothing would give this writer more pleasure than to be proved wrong.``(Dawn)