On 6th January (the concluding day of the visit of the Indian leader), President Musharraf summed up the outcome of the talks in the following words: "History has been made…we have taken a big leap forward. Now we will need to sustain this leap forward through further progress." He could be right in his assessment if India and Pakistan continue to keep up the momentum towards peace.

Many disputes divide nations but few do so with the ferocity that characterise the animosity between India and Pakistan. They fought two wars on Kashmir in 1947 and in 1965 and the third one in 1971 that saw independence of Bangladesh.

Why their animosity arouses such passions?

They are as much a left-over of history as they are a result of the muddle the two sides have made of their relationship. The British further contributed to the political mess as they left the Muslim majority Kashmir territory as a "poisoned chalice". Pakistan considers that India has stolen Kashmir while India maintains that it is a part of India because its Hindu ruler acceded it to India in 1947 under the Indian Independence Act 1947.

It was a welcoming news that after two years of confrontational stance India and Pakistan announced that formal talks would begin next month to settle their long standing differences, including Kashmir. It is reported that Pakistan promised that it would not allow terrorists to operate from its soil, while India dropped its insistence that Kashmir was not open to discussion.

It is not the first time that India and Pakistan have agreed to talk bilateral issues including Kashmir. However their positions on Kashmir are so entrenched that they failed to break the vicious cycle of impasse on the Kashmir dispute. Some have remarked that the recent meetings between the two top leaders was rather a romantic -- "one promising the moon to the other -- but when reality dawns, Kashmir will never be solved" because of domestic political reasons.

Promising aspects

Do we perceive anything new in the latest bid to resolve their differences? It can be argued that there are certain factors in political horizon that provide optimism for a shared vision of South Asia free from tension and conflict.

India seems to be keen to rid itself of the image of a "budding" regional bully and has courted its neighbours with good will. India perceives that its olive branch will result in cooperative efforts among South Asian nations. That is one of the reasons why Free Trade Agreement within seven nations was vigorously pushed by India during the SAARC Summit.

Both India and Pakistan have appreciated the dynamics of prevailing world situation and unless they do something concrete to develop a relationship that precludes the sort of tension that in 2002 led them to the brink of war, it will be counterproductive for them in both political and economic terms and they have decided not to continue the confrontational attitude towards each other.

At present trade between the world's second (India) and sixth (Pakistan) largest countries is largely conducted either through third countries or smuggling. Economic activities between states act as a glue to cementing political relations. India has realised that a switch from "swords" to " ploughshares" will expand significantly its economic opportunities with the rest of South Asian six countries with a market of nearly 400 million population.

India by 2025 will be the fourth largest energy consumer in the world but New Delhi until now has refused to obtain gas by pipeline from Iran through Pakistan, even though this would be the most cost-effective way to meet its energy demands. If India can patch up its bilateral issues, the gas pipeline through Pakistan may be a realisable option.

Economic cooperation is not just a product of better relations. It is a means to an end. India's Prime Minister rightly said that "As we develop greater economic stakes in each other, we can put aside mistrust and dispel unwarranted situation."

In the troubled Indian-held Kashmir since 1989 at least 40,000 lives have been lost due to insurrection and there seems to be no end to it. The continuing violence reflects badly on the Vajpayee's coalition government. If India could come to some understanding over Kashmir with Pakistan, it can stop the senseless killings in Kashmir and be able to divert much of its resources from security to social sectors.

Furthermore, India's general election is due to be held either in April or May of this year. The Prime Minister's political party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has unexpectedly done very well in the recent state elections and seized power from the Congress in three states. If the Prime Minister can begin a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan, majority of people in India will be economically benefited. Such situation is likely to bring huge political dividend for his party in the election.

So far Pakistan is concerned, President Musharraf appears to have an unusual characteristic as a Pakistani leader. He advocates a moderate Islamic line. It seems he wants to leave his lasting legacy to his people as a "statesman". In the past, he has been courageous to ditch the Taliban regime and now he wants to strike a deal with India on the Kashmir dispute. He reportedly said : " We must finish off religious extremism…We Muslims have become too emotional", implicitly indicating that Kashmir has become an emotional issue that needs to be resolved with a heavy dose of common sense and reality.

There is an external factor to the lingering Kashmir dispute as well. The dispute has been profoundly irritating to the Western countries including the US. South Asia is a region that harbours many Islamic militants and therefore the West wants to neutralise the region from terrorists. Once the Kashmir dispute is resolved, they believe that the cause of Islamic militants in liberating Kashmir from India's rule will disappear leaving the region tension-free. Pakistan is reportedly under pressure from them to mend its affairs with India. The pressure seems to have increased after Libya announced its programme to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

The Hindu right-wing party in India such as BJP will have the standing to make a compromise to settle the thorny issue. The same can be said of Pakistan since it is saddled with a military President. The recent parliamentary approval provided a stamp of constitutional legitimacy to President Musharraf's rule. A military President backed by army is also in a position of making a suitable deal on Kashmir with India. Both sides could argue that compromises are made for the sake of supreme national interest and by and large people of both countries may accept the deal on Kashmir.

Pitfalls

India in general is suspicious of intentions of military government. It first needs to be convinced that the military-dominated Pakistan government has made an irreversible decision in favour of friendship and peace. After all India considers President Musharraf as the principal architect of the "Kargil war" in 1999. In London, the Guardian expressed concern over the credibility of President Musharraf. India needs to see whether Pakistan keeps scrupulously its commitment in preventing militants to cross over to the Indian-held Kashmir from Pakistan and that is why India proposed talks not in January but next month. Furthermore, if there is a terrorist-attack by Pakistan-based militants, the holding of talks might be derailed.

Both the leaders face hardliners in their respective countries. In India, the Hindu right-wing politicians are averse to any dialogue with Pakistan. Their position is to capture and integrate the Pakistan-held Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) with India's Kashmir.

They see Pakistan illegally and forcibly occupying a part of Kashmir. They perceive that any deal on Kashmir through dialogue with Pakistan is a reward to violence by Muslim militants in Kashmir.

In Pakistan, Kashmiri militants and Islamic fundamentalist groups vowed to continue to fighting Indian rule, expressing outrage at President Musharraf's agreement to work towards a solution. Syed Salahuddin, head of Hizbul Mujahideen, the biggest pro-Pakistan Kashmiri group reportedly accused the President of selling out interests of Kashmiris to India.

There are other players in Kashmir and violence does not seem to depend on militants from Pakistan alone. On 9th January (Friday) in an attack on a mosque, 14 worshippers were wounded in Jammu, the winter capital of Kashmir. It's an indication that warm relations between the two countries do not really matter for other players.

Until this date, neither side gave ground to their long-standing known positions. Pakistan demands that the future status of Kashmir can only be determined by self-determination of Kashmiris expressed through plebiscite, supervised by a neutral party, preferably by the UN. India on the other hand considers that Kashmir is an integral part of India and Pakistan- held Kashmir is an illegal occupation resulting out of an aggression by Pakistan in 1947. The gulf between the two sides is palpably so wide that it could not be bridged in previous negotiations.

What is the solution?

The trick seems to be is to arrive at a formula that allows both sides to say that they are in a win-win situation. Human ingenuity must come to play with all the vigour necessary to find a unique deal. Unless there is an imaginative approach from both sides to settle the Kashmir dispute, the talks are likely to fail as they had done before. Meanwhile it is reported that President Musharraf would not insist on a plebiscite in Kashmir. If it is true, the huge concession will go a long way to find a common formula to resolve the issue.

Conclusion

Although the talks will be a new beginning, the stakes of both sides are high. If gestures and the mood are anything to go by, it could presage meaningful negotiations. The goal is to seek a common ground. Both must distinguish between what is ideal and what is achievable. That means each side must appreciate the concerns of the other, only then both parties can build bridges, not barriers.

Friendship is not easy between India and Pakistan and many a time their relationship has gone through ups and downs. Leaders of India and Pakistan have to mould and shape public sentiments within their respective countries so that a settlement of the dispute can be made on the basis of compromise. They are also put to test as to whether they have the capability to negotiate peace while the whole world will watch them.

It is hoped that leaders of India and Pakistan will not fail to demonstrate their courage and imagination to resolve the intractable Kashmir dispute for peace and progress of 1.4 billion people in South Asia. It brings to mind what Sir Winston Churchill once said : "Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others."

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.