If a college of cynics, duly certified as a professional body by its examiners, had been charged with the task to write a primer on how not to prepare for a summit, it could not have bettered the script followed by General Musharraf and his team of advisers.

Everyone and his uncle have been called for consultations with General Musharraf. There in the mock-ornate setting of the Prime Minister's House (which Pakistan's supreme ruler uses for his office) Pakistan Television's captive audience has been treated evening after evening to shots of the general listening serious-eyed to his various callers regarding the line to take in the summit with Mr Vajpayee. In the last few days no one could have been more free with press and TV interviews than the general. Is he hoping to conquer Agra with this media blitz? Are we getting ready for a circus or a serious round of talks?

Talking endlessly about the core issue is fine for a domestic audience. But it is doubtful whether it can have much effect on India. In any case, it doesn't hurt to keep things in perspective. Can we make the ground shift from under Mr Vajpayee's feet? What leverage have we at our disposal to make India share our perceptions on Kashmir? To suppose even for a foolish moment that any serious plans about settling the Kashmir issue will be floated in Agra--Chenab formula or whatever--is to live in a wonderland of our own creation.

On offer at Agra will be a new range of cosmetics, or rather an old line of cosmetics wrapped in fresh paper: trade, travel, easing of visa restrictions, and the like. In other words, makeup or, at best, plastic surgery. No more. Not that in displaying this range India would be guilty of any particular deviousness. There is little we can do to change its marketing strategy.

Yes, India would like militancy to die down in Kashmir. Yes, a Kashmir on the boil hinders India's march to great power status. Even so, we don't exactly have India on the mat. As such we cannot wring from it any major concession. This is not rocket science but simple common sense. If Gen Musharraf's planners are choosing to see it in a different light that's their problem.

Ladies of fashion or beauty who are used to attention take compliments (and even passes) in their stride. In response to the Vajpayee invitation the Musharraf government has simply gone overboard. Its tremulous state of excitement has been evident in the build-up to the summit--a build-up out of sync with what is on offer. If the mood in the Chief Executive's office had been a trifle more restrained, expectations could have been pitched low, in which case even old perfume in new bottles could have counted as an achievement. With expectations pitched unrealistically high, the danger is that a sense of frustration and disillusionment could set in if no tangible progress is made on Kashmir.

It is no good saying amidst the hoopla and noise that we expect nothing dramatic from the summit. The build-up itself, and the CE's relentless consultations and interviews, tell a different story. Mr Abdul Sattar will have a job on his hands once the pageantry is over. Having to look serious (not a difficult task for him) he will have to read deep and portentous meaning into the slim offerings at Agra. Unless of course the talks are to be blasted as a failure and India accused of intransigence. Which is unlikely, given the overall climate which is not conducive to such histrionics.

Not that India-Pakistan relations do not stand in need of a facelift. They do indeed. We need more trade and travel and other forms of exchange to lower the barriers of hostility and mistrust between us. But while doing so, and making the best of a bad job, there is no need to fool ourselves. While we have a position on Kashmir-- and perish the thought we should ever abandon it--we lack the means to change the status quo to our advantage. Nor is it likely that India will give away on the negotiating table what we have failed to wrest from it on the battlefield.

That Kashmir is disputed territory, its disputed status underwritten by UN resolutions, is not something writ on water but a fact carved in stone. If the people of Kashmir do not want to have any truck with India, or if they want to strike out on their own, who are we to sell them down the river? But at the same time no discernible purpose is served by remaining locked in a state of permanent hostility with India.

For our sake, if not India's, we need to come out of the mental trenches of the past. Trade will benefit both countries and perhaps Pakistan more than India. And reducing the burden of militarization will allow scarce resources to be put to more productive uses. That is, if on both sides of the divide, the national security establishments which have a vested interest in the continuation of hostility permit such an outcome to emerge. Look at the subcontinent's poverty and then consider the pretensions on parade. The two things are a world apart.

A thousand hard-liners, however, from the comfort of their armchairs can be heard declaiming that peace and cooperation with India while the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved is an unthinkable proposition. Why? China's unalterable claim to Taiwan does not stop it from having profitable links with Taiwan. Just as Hong Kong's being a British colony did not prevent China from having extensive contacts with it. Japan has never given up its claim to the four Northern Islands captured by Soviet troops at the end of the Second World War but that does not stop it from engaging with Russia in other spheres. Why can't we be similarly pragmatic? Why should sensible relations with India be considered tantamount to the loss of national manhood?

Let us overcome our internal problems, let us attain political stability and build a strong Pakistan. Let us trade with India and try to reduce our absurd arms expenditure. And at the same time let us remain faithful to our position on Kashmir. These three aims are not contradictory. Statesmanship lies not in playing zero-sum games (either/or) but in relating national goals to national strength.

Such a definition of statesmanship, however, flows from a calm way of looking at things. The circus atmosphere allowed to grow around the Musharraf visit is the exact opposite of this mood. What we are expecting from India regarding Kashmir is related more to our wishes than to the facts on the ground. When India does not accede to our wishfulness will we relapse into sullenness or seek refuge in false interpretations?

But caveats apart, let us count our blessings. The momentum generated by this visit is all for the good for even fanfare and empty pageantry have their uses. After this visit, even if nothing else is achieved, it will not be easy for either side to revert that quickly to the rhetoric of the past.

Meanwhile, an important point worth remembering is about the peace clothes General Musharraf is wearing to India. They represent an enduring and not a passing phenomenon. Musharraf's foremost priority is consolidating his rule and giving it a democratic face-lift, plastic surgery being the rage in Pakistan as much as in India. For achieving this aim he has to be more politician than soldier.

Small wonder then if from the various corps headquarters right down to monitoring teams in the districts an intense effort is underway to choose the right kind of district nazims for the August 2 election. There is nothing surreptitious about this process. Generals and brigadiers are openly telling candidates as to who is on board and who is not. General Musharraf has promised to devolve power to the grassroots. Whether this promise is kept or not, grassroots interference by the army of the kind now being seen is a first for Pakistan.

This is democracy army-style and the sounds it is conveying are the birth pangs of a new Convention League to act as civilian handmaiden to another military strongman. It is for outsiders--those who accuse Pakistan of adventurism-- to draw their own conclusions. With the army leadership engaged in these political manoeuvres, it should be obvious to anyone that the army's agenda is peace not war. There can be no better augury for the Agra summit.