After India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, the world's attention refocused on the conflict between them over Jammu & Kashmir. The renewed concern was because of the possibility of its becoming a nuclear flash-point in the region. International opinion, led by the United States, stressed that both the countries should lessen the tension through bilateral dialogue. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's bus ride to Lahore was choreographed against this backdrop. It caught the world's imagination and dramatised India's concern for peace. The euphoria it created made the people feel that peace is about to break out. But close on its heels came the intrusions in Kargil. Though the US intelligence agencies were caught napping. by Pokharan II, they could not have been so negligent again. Even while the Lahore Declaration was inked, they must have had evidence of Pakistani build-up in Kargil but chose not to share it with India. Kargil stunned the nation. Prime Minister Vajpayee and his government were considerably discomfited by it. The sheer grit of our armed forces in those inhospitable heights retrieved the situation that was fraught with ugly consequences.

Kargil was not only a defining moment but also a metaphor of India-Pakistan relationship. It was a perfidious act of highest order and a major confidence destroying measure. Despite Kargil's heavy price, India again took tentative steps towards normalisation by releasing from detention the leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference that is neither secretive nor economical with its rabid anti-India stance. The feelers for a dialogue breathed a fresh lease of life into its moribund state. Though many cited it as an evidence of India's sincere intention for peace in the Valley, the others regretted that Kargil's hard lessons were so easily forgotten. The cynics who traced its roots to Washington were not far off the mark. The State's ruling dispensation, the National Conference was alarmed by it. Feeling insecure because of minimal popular support and the failure of his regime to deliver on most of the promises made, Dr Farooq Abdullah played his "autonomy" card to trump the Centre's move. The State Autonomy Committee, set up after the National Conference came to power in 1996, recommended restoration of the status outlined in Article 370 of the Constitution. With scant meaningful public discussion, the State Assembly approved the recommendations. Barring his histrionics inside and outside the Assembly, Chief Minister Abdullah has avoided outlining the contours of his efforts to improve the lot of his people's and how he was hampered by the so-called erosion of autonomy. But that is another story.

On 24 July, the Hizb-ul-Mujahedeen declared a ceasefire in the State with the professed intention of creating an enabling climate for a dialogue on the Kashmir issue. In the wake of the erstwhile Soviet Union's Afghan misadventure, myriad of radical religious groups sprang up in Pakistan and took to the Kalashnikov culture. They are now busy exporting terrorism world-wide from Pakistan's soil with its active support. Among them, the Hizb-ul-Mujahedeen is the oldest jehadi group and the only one with a cadre comprising the ethnic Kashmiri Muslims from both sides of the Line of Control.

The dramatic 'unilateral' ceasefire announcement was anything but that. It was not because of the overflowing milk of human kindness in the heart of Syed Salahauddin, a known terrorist and chief of the Hizb-ul-Mujahedeen. There are a number of factors that prompted what appeared to be a sudden and welcome act in the Kashmir drama. There is growing evidence of the Hizbul's Kashmiri cadre being relegated to subaltern status by Pakistani establishment and the foreign elements within the jehad movement. To contain its growing frustration and disillusionment, the Hizbul leadership strategised the 'unilateral' ceasefire with a call for a dialogue. The move was on the lines of the classic LTTE ploy and the lull following the offer was utilised to rest, rebuild and regroup its cadre much harried by the security forces. It was also aimed at reinforcing its support base by refurbishing its image as the seeker of peace and freedom for the Kashmiri Muslims.

India had repeatedly expressed its willingness to talk to any group about the Kashmir problem provided the proxy war ceases. Indian intelligence agencies were in touch with the Hizbul's leadership structure. When it agreed to stop violence and discuss the dialogue's modality, there was quiet satisfaction among them. The elation for having brought this terrorist group out in the open to sit across the table was apparent in our Prime Minister's body language whenever he rose to speak about it in Parliament. It was disquieting to feel that his perception of the Kashmir problem was not shaped by realpolitik. He did not realise that the exercise was doomed to fail even before it began. The ceasefire has now been 'unilaterally' terminated, dissipating the false dawn of hope. The time is ripe for a hard look at various dimensions of this long festering problem and the ground realities that constrain it.

Pakistan's military establishment, including its Inter-Services Intelligence, played a master stroke when it successfully transformed political militancy in the J&K into a religious crusade. The fight for a territory was given the mesmerising character of jehad to liberate the Muslim brethren from the infidels' oppression, an inescapable duty of every devout Muslim. While jehad's cross-hairs remain firmly fixed on the J&K, its pan-Islamic characterisation helped Pakistan to mesh in its enlarged focus with the ultimate game plan of destabilising India. It also helped in garnering support of the entire Muslim world. Pakistan brought the militant arms of the diverse radical religious groups that have mushroomed there in the wake of Afghanistan's Talibanisation under the umbrella organisation, the United Jehad Council. The unified command and control structure helps Pakistan to craft a more cohesive, coherent and concerted action plan not only in the J&K but also in other parts of India and the world. In the process, Pakistan has lost sight of the bitter truth that a Frankenstein's monster is born and, if Afghanistan is any precedent, Pakistan will also pay a very heavy price for it.

The United Jehad Council is financially autonomous and not reliant on Pakistan's ruling dispensation and its tottering economy. The cash-rich West Asian Islamic theocracies and the flourishing narcotics trade in the Golden Crescent are its major funding sources. But its moral and physical strength is reinforced by Pakistan's Islamised military bureaucracy and a civil society comprising mostly ill-educated masses and, as a result, obscurantist and feudal in its attributes. General Musharruf's capacity to bring this monster to heel is drastically limited. He is not a part of the elite Punjabi mafia that dominates Pakistan's military, civil and religious bureaucracies. He has not yet grown a 'long beard', which is now much more common in Pakistan Army and Islamabad's corridors of power.

Prime Minister Vajpayee's refusal to dialogue with Pakistan without cessation of terrorism sponsored by it rankles in General Musharruf's heart. The fact that the US has stopped just short of naming Pakistan a terrorist state also rankles as also the fact of Russia citing India as the prime victim of religious terrorism and calling upon it to share its expertise in coping with it. The General is desperate to seek legitimacy in the eyes of Washington and the West. With Clinton keen to make his niche in history secure before he quits the White House, Washington is pressing for resumption of the Lahore Process. Many backroom boys in Pentagon are yet to outgrow their Cold War mindset with its tilt towards Pakistan. They and Rawalpindi (Pakistan Army GHQ) felt that ceasefire by a militant outfit in exchange for talks will show up Pakistan in favourable light. With its ethnic Kashmiri cadre, the Hizbul fitted the bill. Despite protestations to the contrary, the belief that Pentagon and Rawalpindi had their fingers in the pie is reinforced by the fact that the United Jehad Council could not have become a force that it is today in Pakistan polity without Pentagon's acquiescence. The Hizbul's patron saint, Syed Salahuddin was also its head.

Pakistan gambled that the Hizbul declaring the moratorium would intensify international pressure on India to start talking. Initially, the principal interlocutor would be the pro-Pakistan Hurriyat leadership, who would insist on Pakistan being brought in as the third party. However, India focussing on the Hizbul, to the exclusion of the Hurriyat, put the cat among the pigeons. The string of killings, spaced out across the entire State, from Jammu in the south to Kupwara in the north, is its evidence. Though the Hizbul claimed responsibility for it, the needle of suspicion points to the Lashker-e-Tayyaba. Prime Minister Vajpayee's insistence in Parliament of excluding Pakistan from talks till 'cross-border terrorism' ceases left Pakistan with no option but to terminate the ceasefire.

The ground reality is that Pakistan is not only occupying a third of the State's original territory but has also generously ceded to China the area of Aksai Chin in eastern Ladakh. India internationalised what was initially a bilateral problem by complaining to the United Nations against Pakistan. Not surprisingly, ignoring the legal propriety of the accession, Great Britain seized the opportunity and brought a demurring US round to its viewpoint. These two permanent members prompted the Security Council to turn the complaint on its head by declaring it a dispute to be resolved by the people of J&K expressing their will, through a plebiscite, to affiliate with either of the two countries. Thus, three parties to the dispute came into being. Actually, China is the fourth party. But it can be ignored because "not a blade of grass grows" in Aksai Chin, a fact Jawaharlal Nehru had testified with vehemence in Parliament.

From this perspective, the elaborate exercise to engage a solitary terrorist outfit for talks and the hype over the move's transient success is extremely unrealistic. The only thing that the Hizbul leadership can do is to dance like a performing bear at the instance its mentors, Pakistan's religious and military establishments and their mentors, the petro-rich Shiekhdoms of West Asia. Pakistan has to sit across the table from India for serious talks. The cessation of terrorism will, no doubt, create a more congenial climate for it. But the fact of life in Pakistan is the deep nexus between the Islamised Pakistan Army and the consortium of armed religious fanatics. Its proof is the fact that Pakistan's military ruler had to back track on his proposal for a minor modification in the blasphemy law in the face of determined opposition from the "long beards" whose writ prevail in the country. His silence over the chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan), Qazi Hussain Ahmed's threat of a "no holds barred brutal armed campaign" against India is equally eloquent. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect General Musharruf to enforce an embargo on violence from autonomous radical and militant religious groups.

For a moment, let us imagine that we are in a world of fantasy where the roar of RDX loaded cars exploding is stilled and the killings have stopped. Imagine that three parties are sitting around the table. What they will talk about ? Pakistan has been harping on the UN resolution calling for plebiscite. The Hurriyat, claiming to be the authentic voice of the Valley, clamours for "self determination". Suppose India comes round to the view that the UN Resolution of 1948 has not been overtaken by the events of history, and all three agree to a process, by whatever name called, to determine the will of the people. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan was dealing with the entire "State of Jammu & Kashmir". Therefore, the term "the people" refers to the population of the entire State as it was in 1947. In the wake of the recent Autonomy Resolution, the people of Ladakh and those of Jammu have expressed their view. Suppose a compromise is crafted that the territory where plebiscite would be held will exclude these two regions and will be limited to Kashmir region. Thereafter, the question of the UN holding the plebiscite will arise.

The major challenge that the UN will face is the logistics of a plebiscite. Till date, Cambodia is its largest operation. Cambodia is no patch on Kashmir in respect of the size and its inhospitable terrain. Will the UN be able to gather a force four times the size of its present force in Sierra Leone ? The cost of Cambodian mission was around US $ 3 billion. The Kashmir mission would conservatively cost, at today's prices, around US $ 10 billion if not more. This is the first hurdle in this long steeple chase. If the world opinion is deeply committed to the Kashmiri people's right to self determination, the UN may just sail over it. The second hurdle is more difficult. Pakistan and India are well entrenched in the region. Pakistan has integrated the Northern Areas comprising Baltistan, Gilgit, Hunza, Chitral, etc., into its federal structure. In Mirpur-Muzaffarabad area, it has a sponsored government. India has substantial presence on ground in the southern part of the region, from Minimarg and Lolab valley in the north to Jhelum valley up to Pir Panjal range in the south. Obviously, with the two countries' armed might dominating, even with substantial UN presence on ground, a fair and free plebiscite is not possible. India and Pakistan will have to withdraw their military establishments from the area before the plebiscite is held. That appears to be a Herculean, if not impossible, task..

How does the UN determine the people's entitlement to participate in the plebiscite and how the plebiscite area will be sanitised to prevent infiltration to influence the course of the exercise till it is complete ? What happens in the eventuality of a fractured verdict ? How does the UN divide the region to satisfy the will of the people ? The possibility of mass transfer of population on religious lines is not there as Pakistan has already effected 'religious cleansing' of the region by forcing the Kashmiri Pandits out of the Valley. But the movement of people, in the eventuality of a division, is a possibility. Nobody is raising these questions because they are difficult to answer. But they are pertinent and cannot be ignored.

The Kashmir problem is like the Gordian knot. The world powers must come together and, like Alexander of Macedonia, cut it. The diversity of geo-strategic perceptions of the world powers is responsible for its genesis and continuance. With the passage of time, it is becoming more intractable. The powerful voices in Pakistan are urging it to exercise military or even nuclear option. A climate is being created where a minor mishap can turn Humphrey Hawksley's frightening fiction, "Dragon Fire", into a chilling reality much before 3 May 2007. The chief of Jamiaat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan, Muhammad Ajmal Qadri has warned that the target is not limited to Kashmir. The monster that Pakistan is nursing and allowing to spread its poisonous tentacles world-wide must be crushed. It can be done if the cash-rich West Asian nations deny it the financial sustenance and the illicit narcotics trade is stopped by destroying the poppy crop growing in Afghanistan through extensive aerial defoliation. The world powers must heed now the alarming signals emanating from Pakistan. The time is running out.

Mr.Ajoy Bagchi is a member of the Indian Liberal Group.
He is the Executive Director of "The People's Commission on Environment and Develolpment India" He is can be contacted on ajoy@liberalsindia.com