In this context, he proposed that Kashmir should be taken 'in its entirety'. He elaborated that "it has seven regions -- two of the regions are in Pakistan and five in India. In my view, identify a region, whether it is the whole or seven or part, I do not know, identify the region, demilitarise it for ever and change its status. The status can be independence, a condominium where there can be a joint control or there can be UN mandate which has to be defined by legal people (jurists)."

Officials in Islamabad underlined the President's proposal as being consistent with the spirit of understanding that had been reached in New York last month during the meeting of the heads of governments of India and Pakistan. They pointed out that both sides had agreed that "possible options for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the issue should be explored in a sincere spirit and purposeful manner."

However, the Pakistani President's formula does not appear to have been welcomed either in Pakistan or India.

Various political parties in Pakistan have pointed out that the President had not taken his nation into confidence. The also indicated that the National Assembly was in session in Pakistan at that time and should have been consulted. Some of the political parties were particularly critical. The Jamaat-e-Ulema Islami (Fazlur) Secretary General and Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) Deputy Parliamentary Party Leader, Hafiz Ahmad alleged that by proposing seven zones in Kashmir, the President had rolled-back the 57 year-old policy of the country. The Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) Chairman, Raja Zafrul Haq, said that Gen. Musharraf's formula was not based on the ground realities and added that as Kashmiris had not been made a party to the talks, it would be rejected by them. The Jamat-e-Islami chief and MMA president, Qazi Hussain Ahmed said that Jammu and Kashmir was one indivisible unit and the issue could be decided only by holding a plebiscite in accordance with United Nations Resolutions. The former chief of the Inter Services Intelligence Hameed Gul termed the formula as being 'disastrous and dangerous' and 'an effort to appease the United States.' The hostility went up another notch in the comments of the Jammu and Kashmir People's Party leader, Sardar Khalid Ibrahim. He commented that "no ruler of Pakistan, particularly an unelected leader, had a right to demonstrate unilateral flexibility on the principle stand of Pakistan."

Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, the Pakistani Foreign Minister has attempted to soften this criticism. He has pointed out that Musharraf's proposition should be read in the context of his statement that both sides should show flexibility and that Pakistan alone cannot act unilaterally. He has also emphasied that 'in order to have durable peace, we have to get the Kashmir (problem) out of the way. We have to find a solution acceptable to Pakistan, India and the people of Kashmir.'

India's response on the other hand has been to treat the proposals as a 'trial balloon, lacking the requisite seriousness, even to merit a formal response.' Senior officials of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs have also pointed out that Jammu and Kashmir is one of the subjects in the comprehensive dialogue process and that if Pakistan is serious about the proposal, it should bring it to the negotiating table instead of trying to discuss it through the media.

The BJP and the National Democratic Alliance have also opposed Musharraf's plan. The former External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh has pointed out that this Alliance has consistently 'held the view that map-making has to stop in South Asia'. He has gone on to add that 'such attempts would not be acceptable in any disguise. Nor will the Alliance accept any proposal that overrides the will of the Parliament of India'. He has also made it clear that the Alliance will not accept 'third-party intervention because you cannot re-open the question'.

An Indian analyst in 'The Hindu' on 27 October (published from Chennai, India) also referred to Indian officials in New Delhi alleging that Musharraf's proposal was nothing but 'a re-hash of the Faroookh Katwari (President of Ethan Allen, a furniture company based in the USA) Plan that had been in circulation for over ten years now'. It was also suggested that 'as with the Katwari Plan, the latest proposal is aimed at extricating the Kashmir Valley from India'.

Indian analysts appear to be interpreting the Pakistani gesture in the following manner --

(a) Musharraf is implicitly underscoring the point that the current rapprochement between the two countries will come under strain unless the implementation of confidence-building measures is accompanied by substantive dialogue on Kashmir;

(b) By holding out the possibility of serious options, both in terms of geography and political status, Musharraf is seeking to demonstrate that Islamabad has tangibly moved away from its traditional insistence on the holding of a plebiscite. This in turn is aimed at increasing the pressure on India to come up with its own new set of proposals;

(c) Musharraf is hoping to spark a debate in Pakistan on the alternative ways of resolving the Kashmir problem and at the same time, reduce the domestic criticism that he faces for the recent vote in the National Assembly allowing him to retain the post of President and Army Chief until 2007 and for his ongoing support for the 'war on terror';

(d) Musharraf feels that his latest initiative would place Islamabad in a better position to reconcile the differences between the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference -- something which is essential if Pakistan is to strengthen its bargaining clout with India; and finally

(e) Musharraf is likely to use his proposal to urge whichever administration emerges after the US presidential elections to facilitate a substantive dialogue between India and Pakistan on Kashmir.

Whatever be the views on either side of the border, one interesting element appears to have surfaced. An important modification consists of bringing the Northern Areas back into play. After the Simla Agreement of 1972, Pakistan had administratively separated the northern areas from Pakistan administered Kashmir. By referring to the two regions of the state that now lie under Pakistan, Musharraf is possibly talking about the original State of Jammu and Kashmir in its entirety.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has the ball in his court. In New York he had reiterated that India will not accept a redrawing of borders and that there can be no independent Kashmir. This latest proposal has many connotations and will require a fresh approach JN Dixit of India and Tariq Aziz of Pakistan, the two national security advisers will now (as the 'Indian Express' put it on 28 October) be expected to vigorously dribble the Kashmir ball.

What is however clear is that the two nuclear powers are understanding that war is no solution. There now appears to be serious thought about discovering new contours for building bridges of understanding that can reduce tension in this region.

Musharraf, one assumes, discussed his plan with his power-base -- the armed forces -- before making it public. His has been a smart PR move. He was shown to the international community that he has accepted the right of Kashmiris to exist as a nation outside India and Pakistan. this position will be welcomed by the proindependence lobby among Kashmiri separatists. Musharraf's flourish is reminiscent of the past Agra Summit.

One can only hope that this time round, the back-room hardliners on both sides, will not introduce new spanners but work together to find a solution.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador (any response to mzamir@dhaka. net)