For a mutually acceptable and effective compromise, three factors are necessary in Islamabad and Delhi. These are hard realism, a sense of history and a dynamic vision ...

Hard realism demands of both sides an understanding of the plain truth that no nation state will willingly yield territory under its effective control. It can only be wrested by force, by war. War in the given circumstances is out of the question. If Islamabad has any concern for the future of the state of Pakistan and its people, it might as well shed the unrealistic dreams of obtaining for itself the part of Jammu and Kashmir under India's control by summoning spurious arguments such as that the Valley is "Islamic": or by internationalising the issue and luring or extorting support from the G-8 and P-5 powers; or by harping on a now unworkable plebiscite; or, by other similar means and ruses.

Islamabad needs to recognise in a decisive way that justice for it on the Jammu and Kashmir issue cannot and will not come by internationalising the issue ... in the manner that its agencies try by continuing the terrorist "proxy war" in the State; or by frequently starting gun duels on the Line of Control; or in other similar ways. A just settlement can come only by agreement on the basis of a mutually acceptable compromise between the two countries, talking between themselves.

For Delhi, by the same token, a realistic approach would need relaxing the hard posture that has locked its limbs ..

Both the leaders will require to bring a sense of history to bear on the negotiations for an inevitable and mutually acceptable compromise. The sense of history will be necessary for (a) recalling the follies and absurdities in the sub-continent 50 years ago in order to gain a perspective on the present; and (b) understanding the historical instances of similar compromises elsewhere in the past which might provide Delhi and Islamabad a model for a mutually acceptable middle-ground ..

Looking back for historical models in the search for a mutually acceptable middle-ground, a number of examples have frequently been mentioned. There is, for instance, South Tyrol, with some two lakh German- speaking people, which was given to Italy by the Treaty of St. Germaine in 1919. The Treaty of Paris in 1946 confirmed the Italian possession of South Tyrol. But discontent remained, and eventually an agreement between Austria and Italy brought increased autonomy to the German-speaking people.

Another example often cited is that of Trieste between Italy and Yugoslavia (which) had been made the West and the Soviet Union. The idea of a partition fell through because there was no clear ethnic dividing line and because in any case Rome and Belgrade did not agree. Eventually, Italy and Yugoslavia talked over the matter themselves and arrived at a compromise which was formalised in 1975.

... The model ... of Alsace-Lorraine perhaps most relevant to the present situation ... over Kashmir. Alsace- Lorraine is part-German and part-French speaking. It was a bone of contention between France and Germany for 75 years. Germany defeated France in 1870 and incorporated territory. Unremitting French resentment and anger were a contributory cause of the first World War. In 1919, Alsace-Lorraine was ceded to France. In 1940, Germany took it back, but after the second World War, the territory was retroceded to France.

The issue was finally resolved in the next few years. The Treaty of Rome .. brought into being the European Economic Community, which is now the European Union. With the coming into being of the EEC, borders among its member-states became soft, capital flowed easily, people moved and sought jobs and residence wherever they liked. The issue of Alsace-Lorraine simply became irrelevant. Germans and Frenchmen and others could go into the territory freely, settle there and set up businesses there.

All that might be required would be a decision to freeze temporarily the LoC and such a freeze to be reviewed after some 15 or 20 years ... Meanwhile, the two countries, and the other members of SAARC, would turn seriously to the creation of a South Asian Free Trade Area, scheduled for emergence in 2001. With soft borders in South Asia and a free movement of goods, capital and the people, the Kashmir issue would, like Alsace-Lorraine in Europe, very probably become irrelevant, and the scheduled review become a mere formality.

A great deal will depend on whether Mr. Sharif and Mr. Vajpayee can summon the courage to propose and accept such a way out; whether the two ... ignore the clamorous opposition of obscurantists, chauvinists and religion-frenzied fringe groups in their countries.                 (Source: The Hindus, 29 July, 1998)