The first indications that the issue, which has been tossed around for the last few months, has now been seriously revived, came from none other than Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee today. At a meeting in Lucknow, Vajpayee rejected the idea again that the Army would cross the LoC to resolve the Kargil crisis, but added, with some deliberation: ``We want to permanently resolve the Kashmir problem.''

A spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, meanwhile, repeatedly questioned on the Sunday meeting between Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif's envoy Niaz Naik, refused to confirm that the two sides had discussed a ``schedule of so-called withdrawal.''

The IndianExpress had reported Naik's statement to the BBC that the two countries would soon get in touch to discuss a time-bound withdrawal of troops. ``That would be premature,'' the MEA spokesman said, repeating that New Delhi had told the envoy that any dialogue could take place once Islamabad withdrew from across the LoC. He would also not say when and if the Directors-General of Military Operations from both sides would meet (according to Naik, the meeting could take place over the next 2-3 days) to discuss the schedule. But they had had their weekly Tuesday afternoon telephone chat, he confirmed.

Highly placed sources in the government confirmed that the Kargil crisis had imparted a definitive edge to the LoC conversion debate, with the Cabinet Committee on Security discussing it ``on and off'' in recent weeks.

So far the discussion remains an internal matter, but New Delhi seems to be quite keen on bringing this out into the public domain, where it takes on the character of a national debate.

ExternalAffairs Minister Jaswant Singh, more than six months ago in his capacity as deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, was the first to publicly approach the issue. ``Map-making on the sub-continent must come to an end,'' he had said.

Privately, a number of parliamentarians and experts believe that the time has to come to settle the LoC, or its earlier incarnation the `Cease-fire Line', formally. They argue that in practice the LoC is already an international boundary between India and Pakistan, and has been for the last 50 years.

With India having already lost about 200 soldiers in the current conflict in Kargil, and with an eye on the elections three months down the line, the government seems to be quite keen on pulling this off. It is also critically aware of the power of public opinion as the conflict continues each day.

Interestingly, the US has over the last few years, albeit at semi-official track-two policy dialogues, been proposing the same solution to the Kashmir dispute. It is one that NewDelhi has consistently rejected, invoking each time a 1994 Parliament resolution which proclaimed that the ``entire Kashmir'', including the part across the LoC, belonged to India.

Ironically, Kargil seems to have brought Washington and New Delhi much closer together. Last year's nuclear tests had put the bilateral relationship into cold storage, but the handling of the war across the LoC has earned the government crucial points with the West.

One view here is that if a national consensus is generated on this issue, it would be strongly backed by Washington. That would in turn put increasing pressure on Islamabad to seriously consider the proposal.

However, New Delhi insists it has not made the ``LoC for international boundary'' proposal to Pakistan, in exchange for immediate withdrawal of Islamabad's forces and a restoration to status quo ante.

So far the official line is that all conversations with the Pakistani leadership or with its envoys have focussed on the immediate issue: withdraw first, talklater.

Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary K. Raghunath, after concluding day-long visits to Paris and London, said today that both countries have supported India's view that status quo ante must be restored along the LoC, and expressed ``great appreciation of the restraint shown by India in the face of grave provocation.''

In China, foreign office spokesman Zhang Qiyue refused to blame either side on the aggression, but also refrained from calling for a ceasefire. ``India and Pakistan are both important countries of South Asia and have an important responsibility for regional stability. China hopes the issue can be resolved peacefully,'' Zhang said.

And in Washington, US Senator Benjamin Gilman said he would move the US Congress soon to suspend remaining sanctions on India and Pakistan as proposed by the Brownback Amendment, but added that he would oppose the repeal of the Pressler Amendment which ends the arms embargo against Islamabad.