K ASHMIR has never deserved its status as afesteringsore thatserves asa constant reminder of the unfinished business of 1947. It did not audition for this role back then, and most Kashmiris would no doubt prefer not to inhabit an open wound inflicted by their neighbours.

I have hesitated to write anything about last month`s atrocities in Pahalgam not because the terrorist incident wasn`t horrifying, but because there is little new to say beyond condemning the mindless violence, and the decrying the pattern of geopolitics that preceded it. Inevitably, the awful reality in which tourists were reportedly questioned about their faith before Hindu men were murdered in cold blood was blamed on Pakistan and/or the militant groups it is allegedly linked to. But no supporting evidence has come to light and no culprit apprehended.

There have, instead, been hundreds of arrests and scores of unwarranted house demolitions common to the `anti-terrorism` strategies of Israel, India and Pakistan.

It`s interesting that Israel appeared to be the only state wholeheartedly supporting India during the (thankfully) limited days of outright belligerence. Israel was also the supplier of many of the drones that India propelled into Pakistan, doing some damage without making much of a difference.

Plenty of Pakistani drones appear to have gone in the opposite direction.

Anyhow, the cessation of violence last weekend is to be welcomed, regardless of who pushed for it. Donald Trump is claiming credit, as he invariably does, but Pakistan has thanked many other nations, whereas India has relied on the pretence of a temporary bilateral truce. There were reported violations of the truce in the hours after Trump announced it on Saturday, but they quietened down shortly afterwards. Whether the tentative peace that has eventually been obtained will last remains to be seen, but that`s where subcontinentalhopes deserve tobefocused.

Civilian deaths, particularly of children, are the most deplorable outcome of what might be recorded as the four-day war substantially shorter than the skirmishes in 1965 and 1971 but the big difference this time is that the hostilities sprang almost entirely from the idiocy of the Bhakt regime in India. The prime minister, barely visible throughout the conflict (unlike his relatively powerless Pakistani equivalent), had nothing particularly useful to say on Monday, beyond claiming that Operation Sindoor was ongoing.

American media reports suggest that not long after the vice-president, J.D.

Vance, pointed to a hands-off approach, he and Marco Rubio, the secretary of stateand national security adviser, reached for the phones when available intelligence warned of an escalation that could potentially go nuclear.

Whatever the provocation, and whichever states were involved in pushing for a de-escalation, it is a welcome outcome. The cessation of hostilities has, by and large, been welcomed in Pakistan and frequently derided on the Indian side not least by the kind of individuals and outlets who were fabricating nonsense about the capture of Lahore or the destruction of Karachi port and so on. It could even be argued that India`s unwarranted aggression has strengthened the very power it sought to deplete, namely the military component of the hybrid regime in Islamabad.

Pakistan`s defence minister, Khawaja Asif, meanwhile acknowledged internationally that the state has in the past supported the likes of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-eMohammad, which hardly qualifies as a revelation and does not prove that either of these entities was behind the mass murderat Pahalgam.

Neither of the outfits deserves sanctuary, but it`s interesting that whereas India accused the LeT of complicity in the terrorist attack, it`s the JeM chief who has claimed that several of his relatives perished in an attack on Bahawalour.Dating back almost 80 years, the Indian government was never keen on a plebiscite, as ordained by the then new United Nations. There are many reasons to appreciate Jawaharlal Nehru as India`s first prime minister, but Kashmir was a blind spot even for him, and his successors have rarely deviated from the template until the Modi government effectively grabbed the territory six years ago, reinforcing its status as an occupied territory. Pakistan cannot reverse that travesty by force, but nor can New Delhi`s coercion decisively settle the issue. Trump`s offer to mediate is charming but unlikely, like most of his endeavours, to produce dividends.

The unavoidable geographical wedlock between India and Pakistan, alongside the shared history, has always favoured fraternal relations and open trade. Perhaps the votaries of Hindutva and their Pakistani equivalents will need to be re-educated. I don`t expect such a transformation in my lifetime, but there`s always hope.

mahir.dawn @gmail.com