OVER the years, I have repeatedly argued in this space that it is in our self-interest to seek peace with India. True, it takes two to tango, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent offer of a peace treaty needs to be taken seriously.

Speaking recently in Amritsar, he made this proposal in the interest of the people of both India and Pakistan. Emphasising the need for peace, he used the occasion of a new bus service between the two countries to launch his initiative. A few short years ago, when the two armies were poised on the border, such dovish talk would have been unthinkable.

And while no formal treaty has been signed, the two neighbours have made steady if unspectacular progress. An Indian consulate is about to begin functioning in Karachi; a train is in operation between Lahore and Amritsar, as is a bus service; and there is talk of a ferry between Karachi and Mumbai. All this is a far cry when the two countries had even banned over-flights across their respective air space.

The Indian prime minister cautioned Pakistan not to link the Kashmir issue to the progress of the peace moves. While Islamabad cautiously welcomed Mr Manmohan Singh’s offer, it did refer to the need for a Kashmir settlement before substantial progress could be made.

But as the recent World Social Forum conference in Karachi showed, there is little hostility between ordinary Indians and Pakistanis. A young friend from New Delhi wrote to say that he had made the journey by bus and by train with considerable doubts and trepidation. But apart from some organisational glitches at the WSF gathering, he had found a great deal of warmth and hospitality wherever he went. In fact, strangers went out of their way to help him when they found he was an Indian.

This has been the experience of cricket fans as well when they cross the border to witness matches between the two teams. It has certainly been my experience that Indians have been curious and friendly on discovering I was a Pakistani. Despite the endless brainwashing two generations of Indians and Pakistanis have undergone, they retain an affection and warmth for each other.

These sentiments can only be explained by centuries of shared history and culture. Jingoists among Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus — both powerful tribes — search assiduously for differences to feed their malice and hatred. But the vast majority find much more in common with each other than they do with any other nationality.

Given this commonality and goodwill, surely permanent peace should not be beyond our grasp. But as hundreds of millions of South Asians know to their cost, powerful vested interest on both sides find a state of armed truce more profitable than friendship. Armies and intelligence services need the presence of enemies to justify their budgets. To get support for their bellicosity, they create and maintain fear of the ‘other’ among the populace.

The Kashmir dispute was one of the messier results of decolonisation. Often (though not invariably), other similar quarrels among ex-colonies have been resolved. In our case, both sides have been more interested in the land than the people. Had the Kashmiris been the focus of Islamabad’s and New Delhi’s concern, they would have sought a peaceful solution rather than fighting endlessly.

For Pakistan, the options have narrowed over the years. As the power equation has shifted inexorably in India’s favour, force is now clearly not something even the most gung-ho general would contemplate. Short of sheer desperation, I suspect Kargil was the last attempt by Pakistan to resort to a military solution. With growing Indian economic and military clout, the diplomatic option has also slipped out of Islamabad’s grasp.

Armed militancy in Kashmir in a factor to reckon with. But after 9/11, the world has lost all patience with extremist violence, whatever label one wants to brand it with. So, as Lenin famously asked in a pamphlet, where do we go from here? We can continue to encourage the Kashmiri uprising, or persuade the various groups we support to start talking seriously.

If India and Pakistan are serious about a solution, the militant groups can be given a timeframe and told that if they cannot agree on an acceptable solution, the two countries will impose a formula they can live with.

Various formulations have been floated from time to time, but a soft border along the ceasefire line probably is the way forward. Once a deal is signed, militants could be told they will find no sanctuary on either side.

But to do this, there has to be political will in Pakistan to crack down on the various jihadi groups. Both our generals and our hard-line politicians must realise that this is in Pakistan’s own long-term interest. Once Kashmir is off the national agenda, we can begin putting our own house in order.

As everybody realises by now, the peace dividend for India and Pakistan would be enormous. There are synergies and business opportunities to be explored on a scale we have not even dared imagine. For two generations, the wall erected by short-sighted vested interests on both sides has been all but impenetrable.

Fortunately, nothing is permanent, and if the Berlin Wall could be torn down, so can the invisible barrier dividing the subcontinent. In India, the will to realise its global potential provides the motive to settle regional conflicts with neighbours. In Pakistan, the corporate interests of the military, combined with the realisation that we have run out of options, are driving the peace process.

But the window of opportunity will not remain open forever. In Pakistan, General Musharaf is a military ruler who, despite his many faults, can deliver on an agreement. In India, there is a strong lobby that is against Pakistan, and may yet come to power.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is right in wanting to separate the solution to the Kashmir problem from an overall peace treaty. However, the fact remains that as long as no solution is found, it retains the ability to derail the forward momentum the two countries have managed to attain.