The Pakistani president was ebullient in his appeals for help from the West, but sparing in his words when it came to India. He made it clear that the helicopters, which he badly needed, were not welcome from India because of "sensitivities." He should know that satellite cameras have already pictured every nook and corner of Kashmir.

My worry is that if the two countries do not warm up even during times of adversity, there is something basically wrong with them. Despite people to people contact, they still have not overcome the bias and prejudice which they have nourished since they parted company in August 1947.

So many meetings between the two governments, so many visits of non-official delegations, and so many conclaves of dialogue should have evoked the spirit of kinship in the people who have shared the same history, same culture, and same land going back for centuries.

Although disappointed, I was not surprised when at the European Union meeting on Kashmir, before the earthquake, I found delegates from Azad Kashmir, the Kashmiri expatriates, and some Kashmiri leaders from our side articulating the same kind of animus.

True, our security forces have not been a paragon of virtue and have indulged in excesses which are not becoming of democratic and secular India. But there was not a single word of condemnation at the Brussels meeting for terrorists who were described by speakers as "freedom fighters."

I am sure some of the insurgents measure up to this description. In fact I believe that even the uprising in 1989 contained elements of nationalism, although the weapons supplied and the training imparted were from Pakistan. Even the other day they deliberately picked up Hindus as their targets.

How many innocents were killed by the militants was on their conscience. I do not want to go into how many were killed by the terrorists or the security forces because every killing is a scar on humanity. What I have not been able to make out is why the European parliament held what it characterised as the "World Discourse on Kashmir."

At the first session of this discourse last year at Brussels, I made it clear that no third party was welcome and that insistence on the European Union's participation would complicate matters. I made the same point this time also and beseeched the delegates to wait for the outcome of talks between India and Pakistan, which are now more than one year old. Today even the Hurriyat has been involved, in the sense that its president Mirwaiz Farooq has had a series of meetings which started with General Musharraf, continued with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and were followed up again with General Musharraf. He is due to meet Manmohan Singh again, probably after the Saarc meeting which is scheduled for the first week in November at Dhaka. Both General and Manmohan Singh are scheduled to review confidence-building measures, including Kashmir.

What surprised me at Brussels was the observation by Mirwaiz that he welcomed third party intervention. "Azadi" (independence) was one word used by him and other Kashmiri leaders from both sides. Without questioning the representative capacity of these delegates, I want to bring to their attention that General Pervez himself has reportedly observed at a closed meeting that "azadi" is out of the question. The phrase "self determination" has been voiced repeatedly. What does it mean? In today's world of the 21st century when nations are forming larger groups and unions, any suggestion of secession sounds archaic and represents jingoistic nationalism. If the logic of self-determination is applied to the state, Jammu and Ladakh will separate themselves from the Valley.

Whether we like it or not, it is resurrecting the two nation theory of partition days which killed one million people and ousted 20 million from their homes. There is no doubt that the ultimate solution should be on the basis of the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. But when aspirations avoid realities, they melt into willow the wisp dreams. The fact is that rightly or wrongly the state acceded to India, and after 60 years it cannot be turned around into a status that is founded on religion.

However weak, India's polity is secular. It cannot accept a settlement which may undo the country itself. What amazed me at Brusselsand I have watched this at other conclaves on Kashmiris the intransigent stand of Kashmiri expatriates. They even suspect India and Pakistan of coming to a settlement which they believe will be against the wishes of Kashmiris. Their attitude reminds me of many Sikh expatriates who still go on financing the demand for Khalistan.

Their plus point is that they have contact with intelligence agencies, both indigenous and foreign, and have money to finance any movement or uprising to undermine the unity of a particular country. They could be of help to their country of origin if they were to abandon their personal agenda.

What India and Pakistan require are people who can span the distance between the two and who can help create conditions in the sub-continent which makes it move towards economic union. The countries in the region should stay sovereign and continue to have their own identity, but pool their resources economic, technical, and othersfor the development of the area as a whole. As in Europe, borders should be soft, allowing for the free movement of people and goods.

Students of one country should be able to study in another. I recall when Qaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah came to the law college in Lahore where I was studying after articulating the demand for Pakistan, he invited questions. I asked him: The manner in which Hindus and Muslims hate each other means it would take them no time to jump at each other's throats once the British leave. He replied assuringly, "Young man, you know about Germany and France. They fought each other for hundreds of years and now they are the best of friends. That's history, remember blood is thicker than water."

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.