The final part of Habibullah's report touches upon the most sensitive aspect of resolving the Kashmir conflict. Is there a role for the US? Habibullah states that most Kashmiris regard the United States as an honest broker, an opinion rarely held in Muslim countries in the aftermath of 9/11. The view has also been expressed repeatedly in private by several members of the separatist leadership. In fact Kashmiris credit all positive developments in the region over the past five years to efforts made by the United States. Would this attitude continue? Has there been any change recently in this perception? Habibullah could also have discussed this aspect.

At least two reasons could be cited however for the Valley's positive attitude towards the US. First, being the most liberal of all Muslim societies, the Kashmiris do not share the same hostility as others vis-?-vis the US. Second, given the reluctance in India and Pakistan towards conceding an independent Kashmir, they are aware that US support is essential for them to bargain effectively.

What role could the US play? Habibullah opines that the United States can best serve, then, not as a mediator but as a facilitator, paving the way toward resolution while leaving the principal stakeholders to determine the form of that resolution. He also adds that if the situation is to be resolved effectively, the Kashmiris will also need to have a say in the matter. Instead of averting nuclear confrontation as the only concern, Habibullah states that Washington's priority could instead become helping to restore a highly functioning, robust democracy in a part of India - Kashmir - where it has been under threat, which would in turn be an effective means of countering terrorism in India. Action to bolster democracy in Kashmir would also help to undercut the rationale for unrest in Kashmir and thereby help to rid Pakistan?of the incubus of religion based terrorism that has retarded its evolution into a modern nation state.

Two crucial questions need to be addressed in dissecting the above assertion. Is there a difference between mediating and facilitating? In what way could the US help India to restore 'robust democracy' in Kashmir?

Though some disagree, there does exist a difference between mediation and facilitation. The US could pressure both countries to engage in a dialogue, without setting out the agenda and suggesting its eventual outcome. In effect, the US could stay away from the negotiating table but make sure that both India and Pakistan stays there. The US strategy in the last few years has been based on this, perhaps for different motives. Should India refuse any such facilitation if it suits its interests, in terms of US pressurizing Pakistan to engage in a political dialogue and refraining from cross border terrorism? While US pressure is a major factor in Pakistan's decision to engage politically with India, unfortunately, the American influence over Pakistan over the second has been limited. Should this be taken as American insincerity and a sign of bias and reject to role for the US?

Second, in what way could the US 'bolster' democracy in Kashmir? Before contemplating any such role, one should track the record of the US in 'bolstering' democracies elsewhere. Have there been any success stories of the US or any other western countries 'democratizing' non-democracies or semi-democracies from Latin America to the Far East? In fact, the US has indirectly aided the establishment of dictatorial/military regimes. For the US, democracy is a great concept to be preached but not to be practiced abroad. The US should let democracies grow and mature on their own; it has no role in Kashmir whatsoever.

While India should resist any external 'bolstering' of democracy, it should ensure that democracy exists in theory and practice. Holding periodic elections is not an end, but only a means to achieve functional democracy. The massive presence of security forces, Armed Forces Special Powers Act and human rights violations constitute a threat to democracy, in Kashmir and the northeast. India should balance democracy with terrorism. One possible strategy could be to increase the role and scope of national and state human rights commissions.

Habibullah presents another interesting argument on a possible US role - to help modernize Pakistan's armed forces by filling gaps in (Pakistan's) defense arsenal with modern equipment provided on easy terms. This, he perceives as a quid pro quo for action by Pakistan not only to withdraw support for cross border terrorism but also to actively discourage it. Is Pakistan's support for cross border terrorism due to its military weakness? Or is it due to its military strength acquired by close cooperation with the US? If it is due second, how would modernizing Pakistan's security forces reduce cross border terrorism?

To conclude, one should congratulate Habibullah for raising certain critical questions and providing unbiased answers. Obviously his limitations as a serving officer and the short length of the report need to be taken into consideration. India needs such critical inputs and should listen to such criticisms rather than criticizing him on narrow political considerations. The government should encourage such diverse opinions, but, especially in its own bureaucracy.