What is the perception in the US establishment of Kargil?

They do not want force to be used to settle the Kashmir issue. They had welcomed the Lahore process, they had thought that the meeting between the two PMs could settle the issue. They believe that Pakistan has not honoured its commitment to the Simla or Lahore agreements. The biggest casualty for Pakistanis its loss of credibility.

Pakistan has lost influence on the Hill. They focused on one or two individuals for doing their hatchet work and have not been able to do broad consultation, as India has done. Having said that, the Pakistani propaganda machinery has had limited success with the media. Some of the international media has overlooked basic questions. The BBC has not answered how they (the mujahideen) can be there without the Pakistani army.

But hasn't Pakistan managed to internationalise Kashmir?

Anyone can internationalise an issue today. The treatment of an elephant in Madras got internationalised. The issue of Christians got internationalised.If there is an armed intrusion, of course the West should take notice of it. To say that Pakistan should withdraw is not internationalising the issue in that sense. It is not correct that they are diminishing the bilateral forum and trying to bring it to an international forum. The G-8 had emphasised the bilateral framework as the correctpolicy.

So what should South Block now ensure? That Pakistan does not use it to further its agenda of taking it back to the Security Council. That has not happened. Precisely the opposite has happened.

There is a perception that if India manages to throw out the infiltrators, it will help strengthen the democratic forces in Pakistan.

If they find the misadventure has achieved nothing it would generate forces in Pakistan in a positive manner and the hawks will look foolish.

Whatever show of courage is being shown by Pakistan is born out of weakness because its leadership cannot be seen to be letting down the army. The army is finding it difficult to say that what they have done has isolated them. A faction in the army is saying that if General Jehangir Karamat, not a mohajir, was there, he would not have approved of what happened. The thinking in the Pakistani army is not unanimous. There were hawkish elements in the army and in front organisations which felt that if the (Lahore) bus keepsgoing, they would be marginalised. I have a feeling that General Musharraf gave the go-ahead for Kargil after Lahore.

On the face of it, the US seems friendly towards India, which is a break from the past. Do you feel it is a paradigm shift?

Yes. A nation acts out of its own interest. You have to persuade the other side to see an area of congruence. The first thing they are worried about is the overuse of terrorist outfits and their growing association with the Pakistani army and giving Taliban types the run of Pakistan. It is not good for the region, or the people of Pakistan.

Secondly, they see that the use of force to alter the LoC would jeopardise the very sanctity of international agreements. Sartaz Aziz said that they are ready for a dialogue, but what is the point if there is no intention of honouring commitments?

What if the US pressure on Pakistan does not succeed?

They have already hinted at applying pressure on the IMF. There are two ways of doing it. One is to suspend theflow of funds pending a review. The second way is less obtuse. This package would not have gone through in the ordinary course unless the US had not taken the lead. They modified the Glenn Amendment to enable the IMF to give the loan. The US did a special favour to Pakistan, taking a negative step vis-a-vis India.

Today, the IMF management is already worried about the usage of its funds. If the US does not push, further funds will stop. If the programme is going off track, the IMF would have to take corrective action. To get this package, Pakistan needed US help. It cannot discard its suggestion so easily. It is at this stage that a review is being undertaken.

They will do what is in the US national interest; they will not do it to make India happy. Yet with the Secretary of State having spoken to Nawaz Sharif and the US President having taken a personal interest, it would be very dificult for the US to give the impression that it has come to nought.

There has been apprehension about third partyintervention in Kashmir...

Zinni is from the US Central Command which deals with Pakistan. The Pacific Command looks after India. Zinni was selected to keep the focus on Pakistan and the selection was significant. The message was that the Pakistan army was being reined in. Lanpher came here to deliver a brief.

There has been a lot of speculation about the track-two diplomacy that has been going on.

Our information is that to the utter chagrin of Nawaz Sharif, the leak (about Niaz Naik's visit) took place at the Pakistani end by people who don't want a return to normalcy.

Not talking to people does not help. If there is a lead which can result in a respect of the LoC in a non-military fashion, it is worth taking it. It is true, that the transgressors cannot be rewarded, but if precious lives can be saved... All these talks are exploratory.

What are the contours of the formula being explored?

That they must withdraw from the posts they have occupied on the Indian side. That bothsides come to the negotiating table with a sense of commitment. There has been a tremendous loss of credibility and trust.

The US establishment has been able to rein in the Pakistani army all along. Why is it proving so difficult now?

There was a great difficulty in offering them goodies after the Pressler Amendment. Besides, times have changed. The majority of army recruits are madarsa alumni. The Jamaat-e-Islami, having failed to infiltrate the political system, is now trying to infiltrate the army.

A whole lot of people feel that the policies of the US ends up encouraging the wrong people. It has been trying to gain influence through the armed forces, which does not augur well for Pakistani democracy. The military content in the US-Pakistan relationship has made their relationship narrow.

There are things like cooperation in narco-terrorism. I don't know the extent of the cooperation. The Pakistani system is providing the infrastructure for army/drug dealers. This is bothering senior leadersin the US. There is a nexus with Osama bin Laden, the Pakistani militants and Harkat ul Ansar. We have a more open set-up, they are more fundamentalist and more militarist. If a choice has to be exercised, most Congressmen tilt toward India.