INDER Kumar Gujral and Nawaz Sharif, then Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, respectively, met at Male during the SAARC summit to discuss how to improve relations between the two countries. Both decided to normalise trade and business first. But they also appointed a committee of bureaucrats drawn from both sides to discuss Kashmir. With this task done, Gujral requested Nawaz Sharif to allow the export of cotton which was in short supply in India at that time. The latter agreed to it. But a secretary-level official from Pakistan shouted from the corner of the room: “Mian Sahib, what about Kashmir?” The deal did not take place.

This is the bane of relations between India and Pakistan. The bureaucracy in Pakistan believes that it serves its interest if it is adamant. India, too, faces a similar problem. Yet being a democracy, with political masters, the situation has never reached a point where the rulers make up their mind to implement a particular policy and fail to do so because of bureaucracy.

Lately, things are beginning to look up between India and Pakistan because of various reasons. One of them is that people on both sides are sick of enmity and its fallout. Elections in Pakistan, however rigged, have thrown up a political alternative. This is an opportunity for both the countries to start afresh. I wish New Delhi would take the initiative after the government is formed at Islamabad. I am happy to see new ideas for rapprochement emerging in Pakistan and reflecting a different approach from the old mulish one.

Asif Ali Zardari, the co-chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), who is set to lead the next government in Pakistan, has proposed to keep Kashmir “aside” to focus on trade. “We do not want to be a hostage to that situation,” he said while underlining “strong feelings” on Kashmir. Whatever else he may be, Zardari is a realist. He understands that too much embroilment with the Kashmir issue has told upon his country, economically, politically and socially. The entrenchment of the armed forces is one of the worst consequences.

Terrorism which threatens Pakistan in many ways, Zardari knows, was initiated by General Zia-ul Haq and sustained by General Pervez Musharraf to bleed India. True, the latter suffered and it still does. None at Delhi knows when and where terrorists will strike again. Yet, as a gathering of clerics of Dar-ul Uloom at Deoband in India has said, terrorism is against the tenets of Islam and that the religion does not in any way condone the killing of innocents.

Deoband is a severe, orthodox sect of Islam closely connected to the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia. Zaradari may have been influenced by the fatwa from Deoband. He may also be feeling helpless against the situation where terrorists are striking in the northwest. (During the last year, there have been 56 attacks by terrorists in Pakistan, killing 759 citizens, including over 239 security personnel and injuring 1,685.) Zardari’s first priority is to eliminate terrorism. This what Benazir Bhutto would have done had she been alive. To fight terrorism, Zardari has no recourse except relying on the armed forces. He also realises that he cannot challenge the military so long as Kashmir is hanging fire.

Keeping Kashmir “aside” does not mean that Zardari is writing off Kashmir. Nor does it mean “sidelining the question” as is the fear of the Hurriyat leaders. It only means that the two countries have open trade and commerce so that the goodwill generated in the process will help both overcome the impediments on Kashmir and come to a settlement. “We can be patient till everybody grows up further,” says Zardari. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto also told me once in an interview that “it was not incumbent on his generation to solve every problem. Let the next generations take up Kashmir.” Zardari has argued that “maybe, coming generation grows up even further and then let us interact as human beings and come to a position of love.” This is a practical approach.

Pakistan should exploit the opportunity of having access to India’s open markets as the West is doing. Even now the unofficial trade between the two countries through Dubai and Singapore alone is said to be worth $2 billion. Why not have direct trade which will earn the governments on both sides custom duty, excise tax, etc. and save importers the money spent on bringing goods through circuitous routes?

I know there are hardliners who will frown upon Zardari’s suggestion. The two countries have fought three wars on Kashmir and have wasted crores of rupees on defending the line of control. (India has increased its military budget by 10 per cent, from Rs 96,000 crore to Rs 105,500 crore.) Thousands of people have died on the Indian side of Kashmir in the insurgency which has been there off and on for many decades. Terrorism has ended the insurgency.

Kashmir is a political question and it needs to be settled that way. The armed forces cannot solve the problem. Many commanders on the Indian side have said so. The commanders on the Pakistan side have also felt the futility of a militaristic approach. Zardari’s statement only underlines that and he feels that a new initiative is needed to break the logjam.

In fact, Pakistan should tear a leaf from India’s book. The latter has a problem with China on the border. They fought a war in 1962 on this issue. New Delhi believes that Beijing has under its occupation 35,000 square miles of Indian territory. Still India has moved first to have economic ties with China. New Delhi has not whittled down its claim. It holds ever three months a meeting with Beijing on the delineation of the border. In a way, it has kept the border dispute aside. But that does not mean the problem has been settled. New Delhi is utilising the peace at the border to trade which has trebled in the last couple of years. China is reciprocating without reservations.

Pakistan, too, does not have to give up its claim on Kashmir. Nor does it have to abandon the Kashmir Solidarity Day, an exercise it has been going over for some years. But nothing stops it from having trade and business relations with India. Were this to happen, the top industrial houses in India would be willing to invest in Pakistan, as they are doing in the UK, Europe, the US and even China. New Delhi should also be giving concessions in tariffs because it is a developed country compared to its neighbours.

Once the trade between India and Pakistan is established, the arrangement can be extended to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Ultimately, the entire region from Afghanistan to Myanmar can become a common market, like the one the European countries have. The sky is the limit.