THE ugly incidents that marred the one-day international cricket match between India and Pakistan (which the latter won comfortably) serve to underline the tension that continues to sour relations between the two countries.

But the fact that the series took place at all “ and mostly before friendly, appreciative crowds “ is something to savour. We have become so used to the incremental improvements that have taken place in Indo-Pak relations over the last couple of years that we forget the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation that threatened to erupt into a nuclear exchange just four years ago.

This de-escalation has been nothing short of dramatic, and it goes to show that given goodwill, no conflict is without a solution. Not that we have reached a resolution of the Kashmir dispute, but at least both sides are now approaching it in a sensible, rational manner.

But we should not overlook the fact that far too often, goodwill is not enough: economic and geopolitical changes are usually needed to concentrate minds. In the case of the subcontinent, as in so many parts of the world, 9/11 was a catalyst for many changes. Suddenly, Pakistan was flavour-of-the-month in Washington. But with the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, there could be no diversion on the Punjab plains or in Kashmir.

Another factor that has dimmed jingoistic fervour at the GHQ is the steadily growing economic and military imbalance in India’s favour. With this growing clout has come international prestige and diplomatic success in isolating Pakistan. And if 9/11 brought Islamabad dollars and military arms, it also delivered the clear message that support for terrorism was no longer acceptable for any reason.

But for Pakistan, perhaps the last nail in our Kashmir policy’s coffin is the growing rapprochement between New Delhi and Beijing. For decades, much of our strategy and foreign policy had been based on the old axiom of my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. For more than four decades, India and China have been at daggers drawn over the border dispute which erupted into armed conflict in 1962. Since then, both Beijing and Islamabad have been in tacit alliance against India.

However, with both the Asian giants now emerging as major players in the global economy, neither wants to be diverted by remote border issues. Slowly, gingerly, they have sought to sideline their differences and concentrate on trade. And as military tension dissipates, Pakistan’s usefulness to the pragmatic Chinese is proportionally reduced.

In Islamabad’s calculus, we can no longer count on Beijing’s military or diplomatic support in case of war with India. Indeed, the Chinese leadership has been advising Pakistan for years to sort out its differences with India bilaterally. And despite much Pakistani pleading, Washington has refused to take sides in the Kashmir dispute beyond publicly rebuking Islamabad for its support to terrorist groups.

So when President Musharraf recently told a group of Indian journalists in New Delhi that he had come with a new heart’, he meant it. And if his change of heart is the result of the factors briefly discussed above, so be it.

When Musharraf told Kashmiri leaders to use their brains’, he meant that they should look at the changing world, and not just keep on repeating their mantra of azadi’ (freedom). In any case, the numbers no longer support the Pakistan cause (if they ever did): in a recent poll commissioned by the Times of India, less than four per cent of the people in Indian-controlled Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan. The poll also indicated how fed up ordinary Kashmiris are with the 15-year old insurgency: nearly twice as many put education ahead of azadi’ as the foremost issue in their minds. The numbers for health, tourism and development also showed a similar preference.

Despite these attitudes, many Kashmiri militants remain wedded to their cause. Accusing Gen Musharraf of selling out, a statement issued by some of the most hardline groups said: “He has knelt before India. There is no precedent of such a meek surrender in the history of Pakistan. We will not give up holy war “ Jihad “ until Kashmir becomes free...”

And yet, what are the options? War, diplomacy and cross-border terrorism have all failed to persuade India to permit a referendum on whether Kashmiris wanted to be with India or Pakistan. Note that in the UN resolution, they did not have the alternative of demanding independence.

In New Delhi, President Musharraf suggested that we start “thinking outside the box” to arrive at a solution that would be acceptable to India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. A few of us have been saying this for years. The problem is that the most logical way out is to declare the Line of Control the international border, but this is unacceptable to many militant groups. This is also opposed by many extremists in Pakistan, as well as elements in the army and the ISI.

In a way, it is healthy that this debate is taking place at all. Had a civilian leader taken all the steps necessary to reach where we are in our relations with India, I have no doubt he or she would have been removed by the army in the name of national interest. Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have suffered this fate, and could be excused for feeling bitter.

But the army is, for better or for worse, the ultimate arbiter in Pakistan’s relations with India. Political reality dictates that only a general could sign a deal with the Indian government without being unseated. However, the army chief has to develop a consensus within his high command to make the major policy reversals Musharraf has, and this consensus has come about as a result of changing circumstances.

As the peace process unfolds, it is important that militants in Indian Kashmir and hawks in Pakistan are not allowed to derail it. At least one newspaper in Pakistan has remarked that the difference between the Indo-Chinese dispute and the one between India and Pakistan, is that in the latter, the people’s wishes are the key factor, and not territory.

But considering what ordinary Kashmiris have been put through, this is a doubtful proposition. They want most of all to return to a normal existence. Surely this is not too much to ask for.