As Pakistan and India drift once more towards armed conflict, it is clear their leaders continue to refuse to heed either the lessons of history or the needs of their own people.

The war hysteria being generated in India over the last few months is now reaching fever pitch. Combined with the flak the BJP has been taking over the Gujarat pogroms and its electoral setbacks in recent state elections, there is a certain internal compulsion dictating a bellicose policy towards Pakistan. Much of the Indian media echoes and supports this stance, so it is difficult to see how we can escape some kind of armed action. If the recent killings in an army camp in Srinagar don't trigger it, some other atrocity like Abdul Ghani Lone's murder probably will.

In all likelihood, action will be in the form of a limited bombing attack or an incursion into Azad Kashmir, based on the calculation that Pakistan will not widen the conflict and cross the international border. Don't bet on it: this is the same mistake Ayub Khan made in 1965 when he initiated a limited attack in Kashmir and was then shocked to find Indian forces knocking at Lahore's door. The fact is that if India does cross the Line of Control in Kashmir, there will be enormous pressure on Musharraf to retaliate at a time and place of their own choosing. And the riposte will not be long delayed because of the rage in the streets.

When will nuclear forces enter the equation is the 64 million dollar question. For the present, one important factor staying India's hand is the presence of American forces in the area: Washington does not want them or their operations against Al Qaeda jeopardized. Once hostilities break out, there is no telling how quickly they will spin out of control. To a large extent, the American military presence in and near Pakistan has been a blessing in disguise.

When Islamabad claims that the attacks initiated by separatist militants are not its responsibility, it is only partly right. These jihadi organizations operate with a great deal of autonomy. But having said that, it cannot be denied that they are supported and sustained by private outfits here in Pakistan, and they receive more than a wink and a nod from officialdom. Until recently, they were openly collecting contributions, and even when they were officially banned by the government in January, they swiftly moved into Azad Kashmir which is under complete Pakistani control.

Just to jog readers' memories, two out of three of Pakistan's wars were fought when the army was in charge, and the first one in 1948 mercifully remained confined to Kashmir. In the other two conflicts, the military rulers of the day were deeply embroiled in political crises: Ayub Khan may have won the shady, indirect election of 1964 against Miss Fatima Jinnah, but his legitimacy was suspect; Yahya Khan and his junta were overwhelmed by the results of the 1971 elections and sought a hamhanded military solution to a deep-rooted, multi-dimensional predicament.

Now, the rigged referendum has again brought about a convergence of confrontation with India and an internal political crisis in which Gen Musharraf's moral authority to rule has been severely dented. The contradiction is compounded by the military rulers' compulsion to keep the two major political parties out of the reckoning while it tries to cobble together a facade of national unity with a ragtag collection of nonentities. in a sense, Musharraf and his advisers have painted themselves into a corner.

In this crisis, Pakistan finds itself friendless: the Americans are trying to quieten things down for their own interests. But there are no ringing expressions of solidarity from our traditional friends like China, Iran and Turkey. The Arabs want to stay on India's right side. While many countries have appealed for sanity and restraint, nobody has leapt to Pakistan's defence or condemned India's bellicosity.

It should be obvious that this is a conflict Pakistan cannot win, but a victory for India will be a pyrrhic one: the insurgency in Kashmir will certainly not stop. And if Gen Musharraf is unseated, those who follow him will probably not even make a pretence of reining in the jihadis. A destabilized Pakistan will be very volatile and a danger to the entire region. It goes without saying that if the conflict escalates into a nuclear exchange, neither side will win.

Apart from wanting to crush the insurgency in Kashmir, what are India's goals in turning on the heat? Clearly, it is cashing in on the 'war against terror': the killing in Kashmir has been going on for over a decade without Indian forces being mobilized along the international border. Indian politicians talk incessantly of their desire to 'teach Pakistan a lesson.' But a lesson in what? A war, even a limited one, in which Pakistan is the loser will only give Islamabad greater incentive for sending in more militants.

Unfortunately, the real lessons for both sides are being lost under the clouds of hype and hysteria issuing from the two capitals. Pakistan has to accept, once and for all, that it cannot force a decision on Kashmir. It has neither the political nor the military clout to dictate its terms. Every year, the military equation shifts implacably against us. Currently, India has an eight billion dollar arms acquisition program. In diplomatic terms, we are isolated on this issue as never before: even our closest friends insist that Pakistan open talks with our adversary. But this is something Islamabad has been demanding for months, and it is India that has consistently refused a dialogue.

This is an incomprehensible position, at par with the Indian decision not to permit the two countries to play cricket against each other while they do play other sports. Since India is insisting that Pakistan is responsible for terrorist attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere, while Islamabad consistently denies it, why can't the chiefs of the intelligence services of the two countries sit together and exchange information?

Surely talking is better than this insane sabre-rattling that is jangling nerves and causing massive losses in investor confidence as well as the stock markets of both countries. As the far larger and more powerful country, one has always felt that India can take unilateral steps to defuse tensions without compromising its security in a way that Pakistan can't. Unfortunately, Indian leaders have become hostage to their own rhetoric, and seem bent on seeking cheap popularity through their belligerent stand.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is a prisoner of past policies it lacks the political will to change. Despite Gen Musharraf's January speech aimed at reassuring the West and defusing tensions with India, the perception is that he has not quite delivered on his promise to put the jihadi jinn back into the bottle that had been uncorked by his predecessor, Ziaul Haq.

Both governments need to show some maturity and a modicum of concern for their people and step back from the brink before it is too late.