Two weeks after a devastating earthquake in Kashmir and the NWFP, India and Pakistan have taken bold steps based mainly on humanitarian concerns overcoming narrow (in)sensitivities. Is this a new beginning? Has a natural disaster at last made both countries realise the futility of spending enormous funds on building weapons that may not be used? Or is this a stopgap humanitarian break after which the political, military and militant confrontation will continue once the intensity of disaster declines?

Three factors are to be noted in taking into account what is happening at the political level between India and Pakistan. First, the disaster has occurred mainly in Kashmir - in both Indian Kashmir and that part under Pakistan's control and has brought both countries together. Had the disaster taken place only in the NWFP or in Gujarat, as it has happened in the past, it is unlikely that both countries would have come together. Geographical proximity, along with political and popular expectations has played a crucial role in bringing the two countries closer. Second, the natural disaster took place when both countries were slowly but steadily coming together. Important initiatives and agreements have been reached, especially in 2005, including the introduction of a bus service between both Kashmirs and allowing informal interactions at the popular levels amongst the various sections of Kashmiris. Both countries have also shown their willingness to move away from their stated hard-line positions. Third, despite of whatever achievements at the political level, militancy continues in Kashmir. Non-State Actors (NSAs) - whether militants fighting for a political purpose or jihadis pursuing religious objectives - have become independent actors and would continue to remain in Kashmir. Though the United Jihad Council has announced that it would stop its operations, militant attacks continue and include a high profile killing of the education minister of the J&K government, Ghulam Lone.

Post-quake political initiatives should take into account the above factors to realize the changed realities. A bilateral process is already set in motion, which is acceptable to the majority in Kashmir. A section does not accept this process and is hostile, both before and after the earthquake. While it would be ironical to say that both countries must seize the initiative arising out of a human disaster, it would be a colossal blunder if they do not do so to stabilize their relations faster and deeper.

What specific measures could India and Pakistan pursue at this juncture? Two sets of objectives should be the focus - first, focusing on immediate needs in terms of providing relief and rehabilitating the disaster victims; second, focusing on arriving at a long-term understanding on Kashmir. While certain measures have been already proposed and initiated, some have been rejected or seen with suspicion. The Pakistan government's reluctance to provide visas to Indian doctors to visit Kashmir and to use Indian helicopters along with the pilots would prove that the historical sensitivities are stronger than the natural disaster of 7.6 on the Richter scale!

On the positive side, General Musharraf has announced that the LoC should be made irrelevant so that the Kashmiris could move on both sides to reach those who are in need of help. Subsequently, India also announced its willingness to open three points of contact along the LoC to facilitate this movement. India's response shows its maturity and confidence. This should continue so that the bilateral process goes forward. Allowing the Kashmiris to interact at both, political and popular levels are in India's interests. Doubts and suspicions in terms of expanded intra-Kashmiri interaction would only increase and strengthen the self-determination slogan, which should have evaporated by now. The Kashmiris are divided politically and it is unlikely that except for a small minority, the rest would work against the bilateral process from moving further unless it fails to address the demands of azadi. Increased intra-Kashmiri interaction is likely to alienate the extremist and radical sections led by people like Syed Ali Geelani and Syed Salahudin. In the long term, this would also have implications on other jihadi organizations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. India should seize this initiative and be willing to take bolder steps in increasing the contacts across the LoC.

India should also encourage civil society groups to reach the other side. Many groups and leaders, who have been claiming for the same, do it for political reasons, knowing very well that the government would turn down their requests. India could openly announce that it is willing to let those people and groups cross the LoC, provided Pakistan also agrees to the same. This move would help those genuine groups, thereby making sure that the relief reaches the other side and would bring forth the real faces of those who wish to politicize the issue. India would damage its cause only if it refuses permission to them.

Finally, it would be a great boost for the bilateral ties if Manmohan Singh could visit Pakistan to express his sympathies, along with a huge consignment of relief materials. India has taken bold steps; now is the time to get bolder.