Yet, I have respected their views since they have stood by them from the day they have come to politics. They have talked to the establishment but they have never been part of it. I feel that they can be brought round to accept a settlement which faces the realities and also meets the essentials of their demand. In contrast, the stance by elderly Farooq Abdullah and Mufti Mohammad Sayeed is like quick sands. They stand for one thing today and another tomorrow. They are critical of New Delhi when they are the greatest beneficiary. They have been part and parcel of the establishment even though they have been out of government. Abdullah's son was a minister in the Union government, while Mufti has been the Central Home Minister.

Lately, both Abdullah and Mufti have been bizarre in their pronouncement as if they are trying to gain the ground which they had lost to their opponents. Their statements are whimsical. They do not seem to realise that they lose their credibility still further when they attack India. For example, Abdullah has criticised New Delhi for the death penalty to Mohammed Afzal Guru that the Supreme Court of India has endorsed. He has warned that India would "go up in flames" and that the terrorists would destroy relations between the Hindus and the Muslims.

I am aware that Abdullah's rhetoric gets better of him. Many years ago, I complained to Sheikh Abdullah about his son's speech at Aligarh. The Sheikh himself was worried because he had decided to nominate him as his successor. True, Abdullah has matured a lot since. But he still gets carried away by sudden spurts of emotion, as it happened on a TV network the other day. I do not know whether he pleased the Kashmiris but he disappointed his admirers at Delhi and elsewhere. It is difficult to say what will be the fate of Afzal. I, for one, have argued that capital punishment should be abolished. But so long as India does not do that the fate of Afzal will depend on the President of India. Yet, for Abdullah to say that India would go up in flames if Afzal was hanged shows that he does not appreciate the inherent strength of his own country. Similarly, the pluralistic society of ours, however wanting, is not so weak that its fate is dependent on Afzal. I wish the leaders would not bring in relations between Hindus and Muslims in every discussion. Abdullah's outburst has his son's decision to withdraw from all the sub-groups and the committee discussing the future of Kashmir following Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Srinagar. How does this help the situation? Abdullah's future is intertwined with the outcome of deliberations at these committees.

Take Mufti. He is going to the UN to present a case for Kashmir's self-rule. He should know by this time that the fate of Kashmir cannot be decided at the UN. Even Pakistan realises this. It is India's parliament which has to vote on whatever the settlement. Mufti should have begun with the Indian parliament which he has served for many years as a member. His speech at the UN, if at all delivered, may get a mention in a few newspapers. But how does that make any difference? Mufti's party is sharing power at Srinagar. If he believes so strongly about his proposition of self-rule, he should threaten to walk out of the coalition if it is not accepted. But it is more than a coincidence that he should begin talking about the self-rule as soon as his two-and-a-half year-term ends and the Congress Chief Minister steps in. The problem with both Abdullah and Mufti is that they have no hard and fast view on Kashmir. They are trying their best to come back into reckoning in the state. But they cannot easily rub off their pro-establishment image. Even after spending 12 years in Indian jails, the Sheikh could not regain the old affection of the Kashmiris. Abdullah and Mufti have not spent even a day in jail. Although they have expressed disappointment over the pace of agreement on Kashmir, they are essentially pro-establishment men who even when angry are not taken seriously. Now that the talks between Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan are to begin, Abdullah and Mufti can play a role, not by criticising New Delhi but making it understand that the valley remains alienated to the last person due to human rights violations. They can never take the place of Yasin, Shabir or Mirwaiz. But they can say that Jammu and Kashmir joined the Indian Union on the understanding that the state would be supreme in all matters, except foreign affairs, defence and communications and that New Delhi has usurped other subjects. The decision to give more subjects to New Delhi depends on the state which joined the Union, not the other way round. Islamabad has yet a long way to cover. It must give to its part of Kashmir plus the northern areas the same powers and the status which the Kashmir on the Indian side enjoys. They too should have all subjects except foreign affairs, defence and communications. The LoC can be converted into a soft border to make it irrelevant for the people of Jammu and Kashmir and those in Kashmir and northern parts under Pakistan. Why should President General Pervez Musharraf put emphasis on the joint control of certain subjects? It is for people living in the two Kashmirs to decide. Islamabad should first remove the military brass from Kashmir on its side and transfer to it the same powers that New Delhi has done. Any other arrangement between New Delhi and Islamabad will amount to putting the cart before the horse.

In the same way, any talk on the settlement of Kashmir will be putting cart before the horse if Islamabad does not allay the fears in India that the ISI has planned to disintegrate the country. Probably, the authorities are exaggerating the ISI reach for covering up their shoddy performance against terrorists. Yet the gunmen in Kerala, Karnataka and Tamilnadu with the Paskistani passports cannot be all made up. Islamabad should welcome any proof instead of holding on to the phrase used by the India's National Security Adviser that the evidence was weighty but was not clinching.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.