That way Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has kept the tradition of honouring the summit even though his meeting with General Musharraf was on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. What is different this time is that both of them have struck 'confidence' in each other's 'sincerity'. This may well be the breakthrough because none of their predecessors has ever put faith in the other so explicitly.

What it means is that the talks between the secretaries of the two governments on different subjects may see concrete results. After the talks had been conducted, the word was that a consensus had been reached but it had to have the final okay from the top. It seems some of the agreements reached may fructify in the next few weeks, if not days. Musharraf may have to explain the development because there will be progress in other fields without a solution on Kashmir. He can, however, justifiably say that Manmohan Singh's promise to talk on Kashmir itself is an achievement.

His domestic lobby could present a problem. But the manner in which Pakistan's Islamic alliance has welcomed the summit talks indicates that the opposition is confined to the old dwindling group which is anti-India in its approach. Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, leader of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), has welcomed resolution of all disputes between India and Pakistan through dialogue. He did not mention Kashmir.

This attitude of MMA may help Musharraf to postpone the date of stepping down form the post of army chief. He can argue that his understanding with the Indian Prime Minister may cut the Gordian knot, that is Kashmir. A parallel authority that a new chief of army staff may create will come in the way of reaching a solution. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is quite right in saying, "if he (Musharraf) sheds his uniform the continuity of policies will break." But that is a stark reality in every military-run country. Pakistan cannot be any different.

From India's point of view, the agreement on any confidence-building measures is welcome. It can happily link it with Manmohan Singh-Musharraf meeting. This may well be the reason why the news from Islamabad is that if Siachin were to be vacated, Pakistan would not occupy it. More or less, some years ago this was the agreement initialled by the foreign secretaries to convert it a no-man's land. India unwisely stalled the agreement. Some top brass still propound the theory that Siachin is strategically important to the country. But there is an equal number which pooh-poohs this reasoning. That Pakistan will not try to occupy Siachin once India withdraws from it is one assurance that has to be foolproof.

I believe that there may be an agreement on Sir Creek in Gujarat. Musharraf's statement that there is likely to be an understanding on the nuclear problem is significant. Islamabad may also extend to India the MFN (most favoured nation) status, something that it cannot help under the WTO agreement. Some trade concessions are also on cards.

What is important is that Pakistan has come around accepting the step-by-step approach. It does not say now that without progress on Kashmir, nothing can move forward. In fact Manmohan Singh has underlined Musharraf's view that he wanted "progress on all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan." Why is this perceptible change in the attitude of Pakistan? And is it real when the anti-India stance is what largely sustains the military rule in Pakistan? It is too early to give any firm answer. We may get some indication after the US presidential election in early November. But Manmohan Singh may have a point when he says that the General has been "grossly misunderstood."

What needs to be appreciated is that the forward movement between India and Pakistan is largely the fallout from the people-to-people contact at every level and in every field. Washington's hand may well be working behind the scenes. But it is only one of the factors. The main reason is that both New Delhi and Islamabad, after possessing the nuclear bomb, realise that there is no military solution to Kashmir. They also see that people want to turn their attention towards economic development. After a long time the Indo-Pak relationship is on the mend and this needs to be hailed.

Still, people need to know more. Transparency will give them a feeling of participation. A bald joint statement between Manmohan Singh and Musharraf does not tell much. The society on both sides would like to know why the steps contemplated now -- they are welcome steps _ were not taken earlier. A country's foreign policy cannot be hostage to the mandarins who are hawkish at one time and softer at another. Foreign policy is not like the economic development which can be improved by increasing investment. It takes years -- and huge costs -- to build a credible foreign policy.

The BJP's criticism that the joint statement gives Kashmir "centrality" is out of pique. When the party was in power, its terminology was different. But Kashmir figured in every statement. By mentioning it in the beginning or at the end does not matter when the solution sought is to bring normalcy. In fact, both New Delhi and Islamabad are now looking for alternatives to sort out Kashmir. The proposals may not be to the liking of India, Pakistan or the Kashmiris but one of them may still be workable. At the meeting with Musharraf, Manmohan Singh requested Pakistan to suggest some options.

This is the time when the activists and experts should muster their thoughts and make some concrete proposals. The two principles to be kept in mind are that religion will not be the criterion for any solution. The partition of the subcontinent on the basis of religion has not allowed the two countries to settle down even after 57 years. Another division of any sort will revive all the terrible things we have gone through. The two countries will not be able to withstand them this time.

The other cardinal point to remember is that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are directly concerned with the formula devised for a solution. Their concurrence is necessary. It is difficult to satisfy the hotheaded but the overall consent of the people is essential. What the three parties -- India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir -- must realise is that a settlement is well within their grasp. If they let the opportunity to go by, they may possibly miss the best ever chance that has come their way after the partition. Generations may have to suffer if the moment is lost.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.