.. How do we account for (the) political tragedy (in Kashmir) when we are increasingly obsessed with national security ...? Are we supposed to stand united in liquidating these people? Should we show restraint when they are subjected to repression and systematic killings? Reports say that more than 40,000 people have been killed (official figures are much less) during the last 10 years in the mutual encounters between militants and the Indian army. Are we supposed to enlarge the scope of mutual extermination by militarising the entire region ...? The civil society will have to address this question most seriously

The nuclear hawks in both countries argued that the nuclear weapons capability would restraint he two countries and that there would be mutual respect and recognition of each other's power and potentials. In fact, the Kargil conflict has easily demolished this myth of deterrence. Interestingly, when the Kargil operations were over, the very same nuclear hawks seized the argument that the nuclear weapons have greatly restrained the two countries from escalating into a major war. But they conveniently forget the fact that there was no war between 1972 and 1998, and the nuclear tests have greatly enhanced Pakistan's self-confidence in undertaking a cross-border - operation in Kashmir in spite of Vajpayee's Lahore trip and the joint declaration that followed. Though it failed to achieve anything in Kargil, Pakistan was able to tell the world once again its own version of the Kashmir struggle.

The one and only option to end this human tragedy and get over the continuing dilemma is democratisation of the Kashmir society on both sides of the LoC. The most urgent task is to win over the people, not militarily ... but through a series of mature political engagements. This certainly requires statesmanship, political honesty and courage. The alternatives to this will be frustrating and disastrous; we will have to face more Kargils, more intrusions,, more mutual killings and a tragedy of more betrayals. (Source: The Economic and Political Weekly, 11 Sept., 1999)