Until he made the famous telephone call on April 28, Pakistan Prime Minister Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali was unfamiliar to most Indians. Chosen to head the tenuous coalition of parties cobbled by Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf in October last year, Jamali is widely regarded as the king's man. His non-confrontationist approach suits the general, though Musharraf is a trifle exasperated by his laidback style.

India and Pakistan are keen to temper expectations with realpolitik, but there are strong compulsions that are propelling the latest peace intiative

It would fall on Jamali's heavy-set shoulders to carry forward A.B. Vajpayee's Srinagar initiative, as it is now known. The Indian prime minister's offer of a "hand of friendship" has created a sliver of hope of the dangerous 18-month-long impasse between India and Pakistan ending. In his brief call to Vajpayee, Jamali broke the ice with some earthy homilies that reflected his passion for hockey. He told Vajpayee in Urdu that just as in sports "haar jeet hoti hai (winning and losing is part of the game)" and the two countries should find a "way to move on". The two leaders struck an air of informality. After inviting Vajpayee to visit Pakistan, Jamali pushed aside his prepared text and said that as the younger of the two, he was prepared to come to Delhi if Vajpayee could not make it to Islamabad.

In Pakistan, the call generated widespread hope of a breakthrough and a visible lifting of spirits. Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar, who was present when Jamali made the call to Vajpayee, cautiously described it as "a good beginning". But Khokhar, who served as Pakistan's high commissioner to India in the 1990s, knows that the road to rapprochement between the two countries is littered with minefields and failed initiatives. "Like porcelain, Indo-Pak relations have to be handled delicately and sensitively. If you drop it, it will break," he says.

In Delhi, the Indian Government was careful to manage expectations of the possibility of a dialogue in the immediate future. The Ministry of External Affairs indicated that Pakistan had to put an end to crossborder terrorism to set the "conducive atmosphere". But on May 2 there was reason for optimism when Vajpayee revealed in Parliament the Government's decision to appoint a new high commissioner in Islamabad and restore civil aviation links on a reciprocal basis.

The earlier cautionary statements on both sides were directed at taking care of the domestic political opinion. The past 18 months saw the largest build-up of conventional forces at the border since the 1971 conflict and even pushed India to the brink of war on two occasions. There were, as one expert put it "gaalis (expletives) galore". Both countries threatened to wipe out the other from the face of the earth with their nuclear weapons. Now each side is keen to show that its policy has paid off. With several states going to the polls this year, the BJP is keen to demonstrate that its Government's hardline approach has yielded dividends. For the Pakistan Government, it is important to demonstrate to the fundamentalist groups that it has not compromised its Kashmir policy.

However, Pakistan realises that there is a need to act with speed before the hawks step in and vitiate the atmosphere again. It is likely to soon announce measures on crossborder terrorism soon that may satisfy India Islamabad has moved away from its stated position that "it has done everything possible on the matter and could do nothing more". Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri hinted at it when he said, "We will try to do something that will lower the temperatures. How far we succeed depends partly on India." (see interview)

TALL PRAYER: Jamali (left) is optimistic even as terrorists step up violence in Kashmir

As a reciprocal gesture, Pakistan is pressing India for non-initiation of combat operations in the Valley as had been done once before. India also wants Pakistan to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and ban organisations like the Lashkar-e-Toiba. Pakistan may agree. But as Lt-General (retd) Javed Ashraf Quazi, a senator and former communications minister, jokes, "How many of them do you want us to ban? Soon there will be no one left to ban except parties like the PPP."

Despite scepticism over the success of the latest initiative, there are some ground realities that will propel the process forward in the coming weeks. Vajpayee realises that his policy of coercive diplomacy was bringing diminishing returns. The build-up of troops did stampede Musharraf into making his January 12 speech that saw Pakistan take major steps against terrorist organisations. This sufficed until the Jammu and Kashmir elections in October, 2002.

In recent months though, Vajpayee's policy was proving counterproductive. For it meant that whenever terrorists struck-as they did in Nadimarg on March 23-Vajpayee had war as the only option. With the US keen on not destabilising the Afghan situation, India found beating the war drum was not paying off. That was one reason why India demobilised its troops from forward positions last year. It is significant that since the attack on Gandhinagar's Akshardham temple in September 2002, the Government has avoided blaming Musharraf directly. This has allowed both sides some space to manoeuvre. Vajpayee was also possibly waiting for a decent interval between last year's crisis to return to the dialogue table.

The Indian Government was also waiting for the political situation in Pakistan to stabilise after the return to civilian rule since October. By propelling the pml(q) headed by Jamali to power, Musharraf has ensured that the Government remains his handmaiden. The only thing Musharraf had not calculated was the stunning performance of the Muslim fundamentalist parties that banded together under the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and won 67 of the 342 seats in the National Assembly. The MMA also stormed to power in the NWFP and is part of the coalition Government in Baluchistan-Jamali's home province. For Musharraf, the fundamentalists have been a source of constant headache. They recently created a deadlock in Parliament demanding that Musharraf give up his dual post as army chief. Knowing it would be suicidal, Musharraf has refused and indicated he would do so only when the political situation stabilised.

It appears that Musharraf has weathered the storm and is firmly in the saddle for the next couple of years. He has the army well in command. Vajpayee too realises that he has to do business with Musharraf whether he trusts him or not. After the Agra disaster, the general has been keen to re-establish his credentials with India. He was hurt when Vajpayee spurned his overtures at Almaty, Kazakhastan, and has since made efforts to bring down crossborder terrorism. He was, however, disappointed that Vajpayee didn't reciprocate earlier.

Yet Musharraf knows the importance of Vajpayee's latest overture and will grab it with both hands. Apart from bolstering his credibility with the jehadis by getting the Indians back to the negotiating table, he hopes it will bring back foreign direct investment which has all but dried up because of the tensions. Though the US has repeatedly bailed him out financially, Musharraf wants to make peace with India as quickly as possible and is backing his proxy, Jamali, to the hilt. Says Lt-General Rashid Qureshi, the President's spokesperson: "There will be no impediment to the talks on the President's part. He supports it fully and the Government will not let the opportunity pass."

There are other dynamics at work that might push the two countries towards a dialogue. Saddam Hussein's swift ouster in Iraq has brought back American pressure for the situation in the subcontinent to stabilise. To Pakistan's disappointment, the US is not planning to change the existing order in South Asia as they are in West Asia. That means the US wants India and Pakistan to agree on a stable "status quo" and keep the region free from tension. Mushahid Hussain, a PML(Q) senator and former information minister, says, "The US role is like the fire brigade. It wants to douse the flames and cool temperatures. But nothing beyond that."

Pakistan believes that the US has brought pressure to bear on India to begin the dialogue-something India strongly denies. Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal maintains that all through the recent interaction with senior US officials there has been no pressure from them on a dialogue with Pakistan. Yet it does seem more than a coincidence that there has been a flurry of developments preceding the visit of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to the subcontinent. Says Kanti Bajpai, expert on strategic affairs: "Clearly some of it is being done under international pressure. The Americans have been keen to get things going, and this is the least we could do."

The US Administration, for its part, says it is pleased with the progress. State Department officials reiterate they are encouraged by the statements from both sides and would like to see some level of continued contacts "which may be cultural, economic or political" such that the war- like postures cease. Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and someone who has for long worked on South Asia, is one who has struck more than just a cautionary note on the current thaw. "The structural differences between the two countries are too deep. They seem to be conspiring to make the Americans believe that they are serious," he says.

LINE OF FIRE: Indian soldiers keep vigil (above) as militants rally in Muzaffarabad

So is the Srinagar initiative going to end up like Lahore and Agra? Or will we, as Kasuri puts it, "be third time lucky"? There are some indications that the two sides have learnt lessons from their experiences. Such as trying to avoid staking everything in an ill-prepared summit as in Agra. Says Khokhar: "You don't climb a mountain by starting from the top. We need a carefully prepared route to reach summit-level talks." Niaz Naik, a former foreign secretary and key negotiator, agrees, "Go step by step. Take it quietly, not in a spectacular way." Naik prefers the Helsinki approach of dividing everything into baskets of issues and forming expert groups to deal with them. One such could be on economic trade, the other on cultural ties and a third on issues like Kashmir and terrorism.

Indian experts also prefer a graduated, carefully choreographed approach. G. Parthasarathy, former high commissioner to Pakistan, says, "There has to be engagement. Measures like sending a high commissioner, people-to-people contact are welcome as the first step in that process. However, dialogue at the foreign secretary or ministerial level should only be undertaken after an assessment of what should be the agenda and the objectives of such talks." In short, the process should be strung out and made sustainable so that not everything appears as a grand gesture. Also as Cohen points out, "To get a lot, you have to give up some. Right now, both sides believe that they can get a lot without giving up anything. They have to realise that concessions have to be made."

India and Pakistan are once again at the crossroads. A correct turn now and it could unleash a wave of peace and prosperity. A wrong one could find both countries again staring at the abyss.

— with Anil Padmanabhan in New York