``The intruders have occupied our land, and butchered our people,'' says Lt Gen (retd) Y D Sahasrabuddhe.

``There is no question of offering a safe passage to those who do not deserve such decent treatment. It's time to teach Pakistan a lesson once and for all, otherwise what guarantee is there that they will not repeat their intrusions in Punjab, Rajasthan or western Kashmir?''

Col (retd) Anil Athale, a specialist in studies on counter-insurgency operations, firmly believes that Pakistan should not be let off without paying a sufficient price for such a misadventure. ``We should surround and starve them to surrender,'' he suggests. ``Let the Indian army take them into custody and return them by the Lahore bus to the Wagah border.''

Since Pakistan has taken the initiative in the intrusion, let us talk tough and end the conflict on our terms, though the US may try to coax us into such a suggestion, says Lt Gen (retd) R V Kulkarni, who agrees that surrender is the most acceptable solution.

Lt Gen (retd) Eric Vas, an expert on strategy, thinks that the ``psychologically superior'' solution is to offer the intruders who surrender all rights of prisoners of war as per the Geneva Convention, and return them by the Wagah Border.

``Declare a cease-fire,'' suggests Air Chief Marshal (retd) H Moolgavkar, adding that offering safe passage is only condoning their acts ofatrocity. ``Action can be taken as per the Geneva Convention against those who have tortured our jawans, and the rest should be returned to Pakistan.''

But the lone voice of dissent, Major Gen (retd) M G Rajwade, believes offering safe passage is the simplest solution to the crisis, for it will mean the least number of casualties. ``A very small portion of our large population does justice to the cause of the army, and the longer the conflict drags on, more the lives that will be lost, the longer it will take to settle.''

But will such an agreement only serve to demoralise our forcescurrently fighting in Kargil? Our meekness will reflect as weakness, says Moolgavkar. ``Our jawans who have exercised tremendous restraint by not crossing the LOC, will be let down by such a concession,'' says Athale.

``Our forces won't take it too kindly,'' says Kulkarni. ``How can you ask your soldiers to risk their lives for a cause and then meekly let the enemy walk away? We have displayed this weakness in the past by returning land we captured. Let us not practice this philosophy.'' Rajwade thinks that the troops will be disappointed that they could not shoot greater numbers of the enemy. ``They will certainly feel disappointed, after losing so many of their comrades,'' says Moolgavkar.

But the consensus is that Pakistan is looking desperately for just such a ``face-saving measure.'' ``Pakistan is tactically cornered, facing international disgrace, but we cannot afford to give them such a face-saver. They have to be made to pay a price,'' says Athale. Pakistan may suggest such a measure and succeed in finding people who support this line of thinking, but since we are paying a ridiculously high price in terms of lives, we cannot give them this option, says Kulkarni.

Sahasrabuddhe says though Pakistan wants a face-saver, experience shows that they do not abide by agreements, rules, or any laws. Vas believes that Pakistan has broken its word before and there is no guarantee to prevent them from breaking it again, though Sharif is desperate to improve his country's international status. Rajwade, who is in favour of such an agreement, says, ``What is the loss of face for us? I am not worried about Sharif, I am only thinking of the national interest.''

And so the message goes, from former servicemen...this time there should be no concession, no exit corridor or safe passage, no easy way out, let the intruders learn a lesson so strong, it leaves no room for history to repeat itself.