COME off it, Gen Musharraf has betrayed nothing, and gone back on nothing, by pressing for fresh approaches to a Kashmir solution. “Going beyond stated positions” is a formula he has been reciting for some time. Only on this occasion he has gone a bit further and elaborated upon this theme.

Take it as a safe bet: if the Jamaat-i-Islami says no to anything, sensible people won’t be far wrong to say yes, even if they haven’t examined the proposition in question. Conversely, if the Jamaat and the hard clerical school it represents say yes to something, there is probably merit in saying no. If a man is known by the company he keeps, a proposition is known by the adherents it attracts.

The Jamaat leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, and others like him, have denounced Gen Musharraf for his Kashmir proposals. This reaction by itself should be enough to take these proposals seriously.

The logic behind Musharraf’s fresh-options thesis is compelling: sticking to old positions would solve nothing. Therefore, let’s be brave and think of something else, something off the beaten track, the beaten track having been worked to death — something feasible and practical.

Pakistan thus seizes the verbal high ground, the moral initiative, showing itself to be flexible and imaginative where India is stodgy and tied to the past.

As eye-catching initiative this is fine but if meant as a serious prelude to peacemaking, it invites the question whether India too is willing to tango. If not, what becomes of this soaring invitation to reach for the clouds?

Realism is the final touchstone of any diplomatic proposal. How realistic is Musharraf’s proposal? For when he talks of dividing Kashmir along geographical lines, demilitarizing the areas thus identified, followed by talks about who should control these areas — India or Pakistan — he is, in effect, calling for a radical change in the status quo, a redrawing of Kashmir’s map.

This is not betraying the Kashmiri cause, as the more strident of Pakistani patriots (may they never see the light) are charging. This is trying to reach for the moon, a worthy ambition but unlikely to come to anything.

“The Bharatiya Janata Party and the National Democratic Alliance,” says former Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, “have consistently held that map making has to stop in South Asia.” The Congress and indeed all other Indian political parties hold to the same line. Pakistan can go on discussing and floating fresh options until kingdom come. But if India doesn’t respond in the same spirit, what becomes of all these efforts?

Don’t forget that the more Pakistani leaders talk of fresh approaches, the more they raise public expectations of a likely solution to the Kashmir problem in the near future. That not happening, disappointment can set in which in turn may trigger a return to the old self-defeating rhetoric of anger and hostility. So while striving for peace in Kashmir and trying to break out of the old moulds of thinking, a praiseworthy endeavour, we should not lose sight of reality.

At present, certain things are well within the realm of possibility: softening the Line of Control, removing travel restrictions, reducing military presence in both parts of Kashmir, engaging the Kashmiri leadership in the peace process. But redrawing the map of Kashmir or moving the Line of Control left and right doesn’t fall in the same category. But to imply that it does, amounts to confusing the issue and raising false expectations.

Kashmir is a tragedy, no doubt about it, for Pakistan and India and more so for the people of Kashmir. The question is, how to undo the past and roll back the years? On more than one occasion we took up arms for the Kashmir cause only to discover that what this entailed far outstripped our means and indeed determination. India has committed mistakes of its own, taking the Kashmiris for granted, in the process alienating their feelings beyond the point of no return.

Learning something from their costly experience, both countries are now trying to tread a different path, shifting from paranoia and reflexive hostility to a more rational way of looking at each other. To their mutual benefit, one might add, for never-ending hostility never served anyone’s interests.

But even as India and Pakistan sway to the sounds of a new symphony, it is worth remembering that victories lost on the battlefield are seldom won on the negotiating table. In other words, ambitions and goals must be tailored to what is achievable. Let us by all means stir the still waters of Kashmir diplomacy, which Gen Musharraf has astutely done, but, again, without losing sight of reality.

And let us “go beyond stated positions” to the extent that the other side is also willing to go in the same direction. If India makes a virtue of not budging from its basic stand — that there can be no change in Kashmir geography — then we should think hard whether there is any benefit in pursuing a policy of unilateral flexibility.

Let us be sensible about Kashmir by realizing the limits of what is attainable but, at the same time, without feeling compelled to compromise our basic position that the fate of Kashmir must be decided according to the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We shouldn’t be making concessions for which we get nothing in return.

Above all, let us not lose sight of the larger picture. Do we want the Kashmiris on our side, their sympathies in harmony with ours? Well then, the best way to achieve this is not through slogans, of which the Kashmiris have had enough, but by striving to turn Pakistan into an economic and political success story.

East Germany was not conquered by force of arms when the Berlin Wall fell. No Jaish-i-Muhammad or Lashkar-i-Tayyaba liberated it. Its people were drawn to West Germany because of its economic strength and democratic freedoms. When they got the chance, they voted with their feet, the force of their exodus bringing about the collapse of the East German state.

Apart from Turkey, Pakistan is the only other country in the Muslim world which, with just a little effort, can easily become a functioning democracy. Even as it is, with all its mistakes and shortcomings, Pakistani society is more open than most others in the Islamic world. Here’s a democratic revolution waiting to happen but only if the army will let it.

Gen Musharraf talks of fixing everything, from foreign to domestic policy, except the one thing that needs fixing most of all: the army’s proclivity to jump into the political fray. More than a consensus on possible ways to solve the Kashmir dispute, Pakistan needs a consensus about its political system. How will change of government be effected? Through the ballot box or the intervention of the army’s Triple One Brigade stationed in Westridge, Rawalpindi?

When Kashmiris look in Pakistan’s direction, they should be able to say, ah, this is the land of our dreams, this is where we want to be. But they’ll only say this if they have something to look at: a stable and self-confident country firmly set on the path of development.

And a country, incidentally, where the highest in the land, from the president downwards, don’t dance attendance on a visiting assistant secretary of state (equivalent to an assistant secretary of ours) from the US State Department; and whose opposition leaders don’t stand in a line waiting to shake hands with, and read out their domestic grievances to — of all the personages in the world — the secretary-general of the Commonwealth.

The most useless organization in the world is — you’ve guessed it — the Organization of Islamic Conference. Next to that, in order of uselessness, is the Commonwealth which the paladins of the opposition take most seriously.

When will it dawn on us that when government and opposition so conduct themselves, the entire country is turned into a laughing-stock?