No matter what criteria is used, Mr. Vajpayee’s invitation to General Musharaf to discuss Indo-Pak relations, passes the genius smell test. In words that came from his own heart, rather than the stone of a diplomat, Mr. Vajpayee made clear that he was going for broke – and going for surgery – and going for a future to be manned by individuals born after the partition of 1947. In this future, the glory of a united India was only in the memory of those scarred by the pains of partition. It is important to recognize the origins, and the reasons, for this pain; but equally important to ignore the perspective of the dead.

That it was the stroke of a genius can be judged by the reactions of Mr. Vajpayee's adversaries. The Pakistanis were stunned into welcoming the initiative; Vajpayee's political opponents, not unlike the nattering nabobs of negativism of yesteryear, could only talk about past failures like the Lahore bus trip. It is okay, and indeed necessary, to be cautious about the prospects of the first genuine peace between two brothers; however, the skepticism of opposition politicians betrays a nervousness of the political ground being swept from under their suspecting feet. That is genius.

Now comes the harder stuff. What kind of an agreement will be fair to both sides, on both sides of the divide? The hardliners in India believe that it is always okay to talk, as long as it is just that. Kashmir is an integral part of India, was destined to be so, and shall always remain so. It is not an issue for talks, and if large segments of the population in Kashmir do not want to be part of India, it is their problem. A plebiscite is out of the question, especially since there is a chance that the Kashmiris may want to be independent - or be part of Pakistan. The born after 1947 generation believes that there are genuine problems with the ostrich view, and that the only solution is via bilateral discussions. The ultimate fair goal is a plebiscite in which the people of Kashmir can express their genuine preferences, and do so in a peaceful fashion. How to ensure such an outcome is the major challenge for the talks.

The Pakistan divide mirrors India. The rabble rousers there believe that Kashmir was always a part of Pakistan! And therefore the talks are an unwelcome irritant. The sword is what matters and the militants have been wielding it for fifty years - so what difference does another decade make? These ostriches, like their Indian counterparts, do not believe in either fairness or justice; a plebiscite may even be unIslamic. The optimists in Pakistan, also the post-Partition generation, believes that the political divide between brothers is a part of history, and history that need not be changed. However, there is nothing compelling us not to be brothers again, brothers tilling different lands, and different crops, and sharing the benefits through trade. And what about Kashmir - well, the Kashmiris ought to decide their own fortunes (or misfortunes). A plebiscite, under peaceful conditions and with three options - independence, part of India or part of Pakistan - is therefore a necessary interlude to peace and prosperity across borders.

Both Vajpayee and Musharaf are ideally placed to bring about a common peaceful future. Prospects for peace in Kashmir increased the day the National Democratic Alliance, via the "hard-line" BJP, won the election. An impossible by-product of the Congress continuing to rule was that it would never have delivered on Kashmir, the Nehru legacy being intransigence on Kashmir. Another reason why the nattering nabobs are secretly wishful that talks go the Lahore busway.

The forthcoming talks are not unlike US-China ping pong diplomacy of 1971. The substitution of cricket is more than welcome, but the fact remains that the Democrats in the US could not bring about peace with the Chinese because they were always considered soft on the question; anti Communists of Nixon fame were needed. Analogously, the hawkish BJP and the Kargil general are not even the last hope for those who want peace; surely, if these two gentleman agree, why should the rest of us not?

Before Vajpayee's initiative, India and Pakistan were the only estranged brothers on this planet not talking to each other. East and West Germany unified more than a decade ago. There is a greater divide between North and South Korea - yet they are talking. China and Taiwan is yet another chasm - yet they are talking. There was a much greater divide between the Palestinians and Israelis - yet they talked, and fought, and talked, and agreed to peacefully co-exist, albeit with occasional bursts of non- brotherly violence.

There has never been a greater basis for optimism. One definition of genius is that it is something that is obvious ex-post, after the fact. Of course, concern about mutual economic welfare - the removal of poverty - should be the major joint concern of Indians and Pakistanis. Of course, we should talk, debate about whose team is better at cricket, about whether Imran Khan or Kapil Dev was a better all-rounder, and then get on with the task about building our two economies, together. As we were destined to do so. Separate, but equal. And with the Kashmir problem resolved according to the wishes of the Kashmiris. The only question about Vajpayee's offer is why it did not come earlier. But then, it wouldn't qualify for genius status.