With reference to Iffat Khan's analysis of the Situation in Kashmir (20 February, 2000), I feel that the past with all its burden of mutual recrimination (who threw the first stone?) is no longer meaningful, far less central, to the debate on the Kashmir problem, if the object is to find a solution acceptable to all concerned.

I also feel that the crux of the matter is cool, unemotional, contemplation by the Kashmiri-speaking people, particularly the people of the Valley, on their future. It is transparently clear that whatever the USA may wish, neither India nor Pakistan shall agree to complete independence for the Valley. Neither will the Kashmiris ever accept the status of just another political .or administrative unit of India and Pakistan. The choice then lies in autonomous status for the Valley within India, or within Pakistan, or under the joint umbrella of India and Pakistan.

I have for long firmly believed that the last is the only viable and durable alternative - which will give not only the substance of freedom to the Kashmiris but also bring them double benefits in terms of trade, tourism, education and development resources. At the same time this solution will, at least partially, placate the egos of both the suitors. India would not have been forced to abandon the Valley. Pakistan would have acquired a legitimate access to the Valley, and the Kashmiris would have the whole of the Sub-continent as their second home.

There is no reason why India and Pakistan should go on bleeding economically (and physically) to the detriment of the future of the people of the sub-continent for the sake of the Valley which constitutes only.7% of the territory of the State of J&K on 15 August, 1947 and which constitutes 0.005% of the territory of India (excluding J&K) and 0.02 of the territory of Pakistan (excluding J&K). Time has come for the people of the sub-continent to serve a notice on their governments and force them to drop the curtain on confrontation and enact a new scene of cooperation.