Once again, the seductive sounds of doves murmuring can be heard in the subcontinent as the prime ministers of Pakistan and India both make cooing noises. For the moment, the hawks are relatively silent, but are watching proceedings with gimlet eyes.

This does not mean the killing has stopped in the tortured Kashmir Valley, but at least last year's elections - flawed though they were - have produced a representative government that has added its voice to the call for peace. According to foreign reports (never quoted in the Pakistani press), tourists from India are tentatively returning to the Valley, and some hard-pressed locals who depended on tourism can finally earn a living.

In situations like Kashmir and Palestine, those of us who are far from the frontline tend to urge the combatants to fight to the bitter end and not compromise (our) principles. We conveniently overlook the pain and suffering of those directly involved, except to use their deaths and incarceration as grist for our respective propaganda mills. But do we really care? If we did, would we not urge our leaders to find a solution?

Currently, a momentum for peace has built up, thanks to Mr Vajpayee's initiative; the fact that it has evoked a response in the Pakistani establishment is something to be grateful for. The bus services between the two countries have finally resumed, and hopefully, over-flights will soon follow. Ambassadors have been exchanged, and normalization is well under way. It is important that we continue building on this start, but as we know from bitter experience, relations between India and Pakistan have generally proceeded on the basis of one step forward and two steps back.

There is not much point in apportioning blame, but the last time we seemed to come close to some sort of normality was in the aftermath of Mr Vajpayee's 'bus diplomacy' in 1999. That initiative and its positive response from Nawaz Sharif was derailed by the mad misadventure in Kargil. This low point in relations was followed by a four-year freeze that may finally be ending.

Mr Jamali has frequently said that today, war is unthinkable as a means of solving a problem. He is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the senior partner in the Pakistan government, General Musharraf, might harbour different views. As in Nawaz Sharif's second (interrupted) stint, there is a divergence in military and political thinking.

The situation is not dissimilar to the one Mr Junejo, General Ziaul Haq's hand-picked prime minister, faced in 1987. As negotiations for a Soviet pullout were going on in Geneva, Zia was for a tough line that would not allow the invaders a face-saving exit from Afghanistan. But Junejo gave his foreign minister the authority to take a more flexible position, leading to the departure of Soviet forces. That is when Zia turned against Junejo, and dismissed.

Whenever peace talks between the two states take place, Mr Jamali's bargaining position is bound to be weakened by the differences between Pakistan's economic and diplomatic constraints and the military's position. In a sense, Mr Jamali and his team will be conducting simultaneous negotiations with two sides. His position can be strengthened by support from the opposition parties that are currently boycotting the entire edifice built up by Musharraf after last October's elections. Granted they have extremely valid reasons: the concept of military supremacy over the political system is the antithesis of democracy. But here we are dealing with harsh realities and fleeting opportunities. In the interest of peace, the opposition could consider a truce during which they pledge their support for Mr Jamali's efforts to fully normalize relations with India, including some understanding over Kashmir. This might pre-empt shadowy intelligence agencies from exploiting current political differences to undercut Mr Jamali's position.

In Pakistan, we have been so brainwashed into believing that Kashmir is the end-all and be-all of our national existence that we tend to forget that other, longer-standing disputes have been settled and forgotten. If Germany and France, the countries whose armies have invaded each other for centuries over Alsace-Lorraine, cannot just live in peace but be close allies, surely there is no reason India and Pakistan cannot resolve their differences. And let us not forget that diplomatically, we stand completely isolated over the Kashmir issue. Even traditionally close friends like China have been advising us for years to talk directly with India, something Beijing has started doing itself despite its border war in 1962 and India's substantial territorial claims.

For decades now, the entire subcontinent with a combined population of around 1.5 billion people has been hostage to the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Tourism and trade, the life-blood of many nations, are virtually non-existent, and Saarc, the regional organization, is moribund. Whenever it convenes, it becomes a platform for Indo-Pakistani histrionics instead of being a body where serious issues can be discussed and resolved.

But as the two countries inch towards a dialogue, the Indian leadership must realize the delicacy of Mr Jamali's position and show a degree of magnanimity. After all, India is the stronger power and need not feel as insecure as Pakistan does. Additionally, the Indian opposition must not make use of any concessions Mr Vajpayee makes to gain political mileage. I know this is expecting rather a lot from politicians in both countries who have not exactly set an example of political maturity, but they should realize that a diplomatic breakthrough - should one actually come about - could change the face of the subcontinent in a few years.

When we look around at the successful economies of the Far East, we realize the extent to which we South Asians have handicapped ourselves. At independence in 1947, we were far better off than many of them in terms of industrial production, education and physical infrastructure. Instead of building on our inheritance, we allowed ourselves to be side-tracked by internal strife and puerile politics. It is high time we outgrew these childish preoccupations and moved on.

Tail-piece: In the last few weeks, I have received a number of emails from Indian readers who were upset because according to them, the Pakistani press failed to give any coverage to Noor Fatima, the little Pakistani girl who was given free treatment by Indian heart specialists. I read about the case in the UK, but have no way of knowing how (and if) it was covered in Pakistan. If it was indeed blacked out as my Indian readers suggest, it would be yet another indicator of our loss of humanity.