Before starting this week's column, let me first make it clear where I stand: as an avowed pacifist, I am convinced that human life is too precious to waste over land.

OK, I suppose the modern state has a duty to protect its borders, but beyond that, to waste blood and treasure on fighting other people's battles is something that is neither sensible nor prudent; above all, it is not usually in a nation's best interest. Let as examine our Kashmir policy to see if it passes this test. Legally. We do not claim Kashmir to be part of Pakistan; indeed, even Azad Kashmir has its distinct constitutional existence separate from Pakistan. What we have claimed these past five decades is that Kashmiris should have the right to a plebiscite to decide whether they want to become part of India or Pakistan, and in two resolutions over fifty years ago, the UN Security Council upheld this right.

So far, so good. Having taken up (diplomatic) cudgels on behalf of the Kashmiris, why did we have to fight two-and-a-half wars over their land? Why must our entire foreign policy be hostage to Kashmir? And, above all, why must we maintain a confrontational posture vis-a-vis India at a suicidal cost to ourselves? After all, there are other (Muslim) causes we support without going to war over them. Obviously, we consider Kashmir to be different as we hope to gain that territory if and when a plebiscite is held there. Let us then admit that our ambitions are more territorial than ideological or based on any fundamental principles. Let us also remember that there are many unimplemented UN resolutions, but mercifully, we do not show any inclination to go to war over them.

We need to keep this central fact in view when we consider the forthcoming talks between the Indian and Pakistani heads of government. Another fact that must focus our minds is the vast (and growing) military and economic disparity between the two countries. From this evident truth flows the impossibility of ever wresting Kashmir from India by force. An outgunned nation seek's foreign support, but we are more isolated today over Kashmir than ever before, so there is no prospect of an alliance to help our cause.

Given these facts, we need to ask ourselves whether our present Kashmir policy is sustainable or even desirable. The best we can achieve is to continue our overt and covert support of militants in that suffering valley, causing civilian and military casualties. But having conducted this low-intensity campaign for over a decade, we must realize its futility. India can and will sustain this conflict for years more if necessary. But can we afford to?

We must understand that in the imperfect world we live in, UN resolutions are only as effective as the will of the major powers to implement them. Clearly, in the case of Kashmir, nobody in the world, including our closest friends, is willing to lift a finger. While the issue may be of paramount importance to some of us, for the rest of the world it elicits nothing more than one big yawn. The unpalatable reality is that Pakistanis tend to get far more worked up over 'Islamic' causes than other Muslims do over Kashmir.

There is a school of thought that holds that irrespective of logic and cold realities, we must continue confronting India. According to these people, ghairat or national honour dictates that we either get what we want, or beggar ourselves in the attempt. Never mind that our economy is in tatters and that we are in hock to the tune of $35 billion to international donors, and a similar figure to domestic lenders; never mind that jihadi outfits and other zealots wreak havoc within Pakistan, frightening potential investors away; and never mind that our hugely expensive and overbearing military establishment has been the cause of both political and economic underdevelopment. For this small but powerful lobby, the subtext is that Pakistan can only be defined through enmity with India. This is to be the be-all and end-all of Pakistan's existence. Fifty four years after independence, it seems that we can have no destiny other than hostility towards our neighbour.

But after all these years of hatred and confrontation, what do we have to show for this policy except wasted dreams, shattered lives and lost hopes? Surely our people deserve better. Successive generations of Pakistanis have had to put up with a ramshackle infrastructure, rampant unemployment, grinding poverty, disease and illiteracy. Are the champions of ghairat proposing more of the same? Must we fight to the last Pakistani for the rights of Kashmiris? Ironically, the most vocal proponents of this hard-line policy are sitting comfortably abroad while urging the rest of us to hold fast.

In his invitation to General Musharraf, Mr Vajpayee talks about the need to resume the "composite dialogue" between the two countries. This makes sense: to focus exclusively on Kashmir, as many Pakistani politicians and columnists would like, is to ensure the failure of the talks in advance. The issue is too raw and sensitive to be solved overnight. There must be a cooling off period in which the killing stops and the hysteria subsides for any breakthrough to occur. Kashmir can be put on the back burner while mundane matters like trade and travel are sorted out. After all, if we have been unable to resolve this thorny issue in all these years, it can surely wait a bit longer. What should take priority is to reach an understanding on matters that are not so bitterly disputed so that we can change the atmospheres in the subcontinent, replacing accusations and artillery shells with discourse and reason. I realize this is expecting too much of generals and politicians on both sides, but then too much is at stake not to demand that they put their petty prejudices and pride aside when they sit down to parley. The one big favour General Musharraf and Mr Vajpayee can do themselves and the rest of us is to leave their tired, hackneyed foreign office briefs behind.

The Kashmir dispute has held well over a billion people of South Asia hostage for far too long. It has not allowed SAARC, the regional grouping, to even approach its true potential; it has prevented the people of this vast subcontinent from travelling freely; and it has made us all a laughing stock in a world that is shooting ahead while we remain mired in old enmities and sterile territorial disputes.

Enough is enough. It is time to move on and open a new chapter in South Asia.