WASHINGTON, Oct 9: “Both India and Pakistan want to avoid any dramatic development in Kashmir during the Indian election season,” a South Asian expert in the United States said on Thursday.

Michael Krepon, the founding president of Washington’s Henry L. Stimson Center, said the initiative now was in the hands of the militants, who could change the situation by launching a major attack.

Mr Krepon, who was presenting his report on a recent trip to the occupied Kashmir, said the same people who previously demanded a US role in resolving the Kashmir dispute were now opposing it. He attributed the change to the US-led war in Iraq, which had discouraged many in Kashmir from involving the United States.

The uprising in Kashmir, he said, was mainly localized, with some support from the people crossing over from Pakistan, but “there’s no significant international jihadi involvement.”

He said the state elections last year had brought about a significant change in the valley, although the government was still having some difficulties in implementing its policies.

“It being an election year, New Delhi would want to avoid a crisis. It may continue taking small steps. But there’s going to be nothing substantial,” he said.

India and Pakistan, he said, were “trying to avert a crisis or war but the initiative lies in the hands of the militants. It being an election year in India, the status quo would continue unless the militants take a significant action.”

There was “no real impulse in Washington” either to push for a major solution, he said.

The US, he said, had offered to set up development projects in Kashmir but New Delhi rejected the idea. Despite the rejection, he said, the state government did need outside help.

The infiltration into occupied Kashmir, he said, had continued and the violence had increased after the end of the last tourist season.

The Indian election season, said Mr Krepon, was preventing New Delhi from pursuing “risky new initiatives.”

“This is not good news for the Bush administration, which has asked India for troops in Iraq, help in stopping Iran’s nuclear programme and improved ties with Pakistan,” he said.

India, he said, did not trust the Musharraf government and would prefer to deal with “a democratically elected government.”

During the election season, he said, the Indian government had sheathed the sword and taken small steps away from confrontation. “These steps provide an alternative to both war and normalization of ties with Islamabad.”

New Delhi, he said, could postpone for as long as it wished a serious and sustained engagement with Pakistan, “while easily fending off feeble US efforts to promote dialogue.”

Mr Krepon believes that Washington is more interested in other pressing matters “such as seeking Indian troops for Iraq or rolling back Iran’s nuclear programme” than pushing for a solution in Kashmir.

The Indian government, he said, believed that the Bush administration would continue to be lenient with Pakistan as long the US operation against the remnants of Al Qaeda was under way.

“During the election season, India’s policies toward Pakistan and Kashmir rely heavily on optics rather than substance,” he said. That’s why, he said, India showed little interest in following Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s offer of peace to Pakistan made in April.

Commenting on the possibility of the Indian prime minister attending the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation’s summit in Islamabad, Mr Krepon said: “There is no desire (in New Delhi) to see a photo opportunity of Mr Vajpayee shaking hands with Gen Musharraf.”