The recent spate of tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats from the Indian and Pakistani high commissions in each other's capitals shows yet again the juvenile level of exchange the two countries have descended to.

The Indian government has alleged (and probably not without cause) that its acting high commissioner's car was deliberately cut off and blocked by Pakistani intelligence operatives and its representative in Islamabad had to wait for 45 minutes before he was allowed to proceed to his destination.

We routinely level similar charges against the Indians. As Praful Bidwai, the well-known Indian journalist, has noted recently, such infantile tactics - running as they do against all civilized norms of diplomatic conduct - were not used by the Americans and Soviets even at the height of the cold war.

And coming as they do on the heels of the massive military build-up the two countries indulged in recently, these undiplomatic and unedifying manoeuvres have come as a rude awakening to those perennially optimistic Indians and Pakistanis who keep hoping against hope that miraculously, better sense will finally prevail and relations between the two countries will improve.

Indeed, when troops were pulled back from the common border after months of eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, there were some faint signs that over-flights would be permitted and rail traffic resumed. But passengers still have to fly via Dubai if they are going from Lahore to New Delhi and vice versa, taking six hours for a 45-minute flight.

This kind of lunacy can be multiplied a hundred times to get an idea of the kind of damage this mindless hostility is inflicting on millions of people in South Asia. The entire region is hostage to the unending Kashmir dispute with trade and travel at a virtual standstill. The current state of affairs is enough to make any rational and reasonable person despair.

Of course, we know that there are powerful elements in both countries who want nothing better than for the status quo to remain unchanged: the defence, intelligence and foreign office establishments in India and Pakistan thrive on confrontation. Their budgets are bloated beyond the capacity of both poverty-stricken nations, and yet year after year, the generals and the spooks get whatever they want, plus a few extras.

In Pakistan where the political class is basically an appendage of the army, not a single question raised about military expenditure. As a matter of fact, no details about the defence budget are provided to the public or its representatives.

Even in India with its mature democracy and seasoned politicians, the defence budget is a sacred cow, and the government of the day falls over its own feet in its indecent haste to give the generals, the air marshals and the admirals whatever new toys they want. Currently around 10 billion dollars worth of arms are on order. The way the whistle-blowing website Tehelka.com was shut down after it exposed the corruption at the heart of the Indian military procurement system was an eye-opener.

Recently I came across an article I had written in 1977 in which I had waxed indignant about the pressure the Americans were exerting to force Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to abandon Pakistan's fledgling nuclear programme that was begun shortly after the Indian test in 1974. In my immaturity, I had argued that each country had the sovereign right to self-defence, and western preaching about non-proliferation was hypocritical and patronizing. The assumption that only great powers had the sense of responsibility needed to have nuclear arsenals was rooted in colonial and racist attitudes.

In retrospect, I freely admit I was totally wrong. Judging from the actions of Third World nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, as well as nuclear wannabes like North Korea and Iraq, it is a fact that we do not have the restraint and the mature leadership required to ensure that these weapons are not launched in a fit of pique. Indeed, contrary to conventional wisdom, the subcontinent has become a far less stable region ever since India and Pakistan tested their bombs over four years ago. In that short span of time, the two neighbours have twice gone to the brink, first over Kargil, and then in the aftermath of the attack on the Indian parliament.

Every time I have discussed the Kashmir dispute with the most reasonable people in both India and Pakistan, we end up with a rehash of the official positions the two countries have taken since the early days of independence and the outbreak of the first Kashmir war. This parroting of outdated arguments leaves little or no room for creative thinking.

After a point, the legal rights and wrongs of a dispute are overtaken by events, reality and the rights of the people who are party to the quarrel. As Pakistan tries to drum up diplomatic support, it finds that nobody really cares about who promised what to the UN 55 years ago. It's ancient history in a fast-moving world. And when the Indians talk about their rights to Kashmir, they are advised to improve their human rights record there.

And so the confrontation drags on, threatening all of us in South Asia with a nuclear holocaust, preventing meaningful social and economic development and blocking foreign investment. For Pakistan, another spin-off is the rise of jihadi culture that is destabilizing the state. So what's the solution? How do we drag ourselves out of the quagmire? In the original Security Council resolution, a referendum was seen as the way to determine the wishes of the Kashmiri people. India went back on its word, citing the change in the environment after Pakistan signed a military pact with the United States in 1954.

It would be pointless to go over the tired arguments that have been repeated ad nauseam from both sides of the great divide. However, as all the citizens of India and Pakistan have been made parties to the dispute by their incompetent leaders, perhaps it is high time to ask them how they feel about Kashmir. So maybe a referendum in both countries is the way forward with New Delhi and Islamabad agreeing to abide by the wishes of the majority. The referendum would be supervised by the UN, and a single question would be put to all adult citizens in India and Pakistan:

"Is Kashmir more important than jobs, education, roads, electricity and medical care for you and your family?" If the majority says 'no', then both governments should withdraw their forces from the parts of Kashmir they control and allow the Kashmiris to decide their own destiny without interference from India or Pakistan.