Ever since the partition in 1947, India-Pakistan relations have always been plagued by mistrust and mutual acrimony. At the core of the dispute is Kashmir that has led to three wars between the two countries. In spite of several attempts of confidence building measures (CBMs) initiated by both the countries, the relations seem to be far complex for a political resolution acceptable to both. The former Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who wanted good relations with all the neighbours, including Pakistan, made a trip to Lahore, symbolically travelling in a bus, to extend India’s hand of friendship to Pakistan. It is to the credit of Nawaz Sharif that he responded positively to Vajpayee’s initiative, which culminated in the signing of the famous “Lahore declaration.” The Lahore treaty was a historic and landmark agreement in many ways, as both the countries agreed to resolve all disputes, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, through composite dialogue. The other important features of the declaration related to taking immediate steps to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear conflict, and discuss concepts and doctrines in order to elaborate CBMs in nuclear and conventional fields aimed at preventing conflict. Both the leaders also condemned terrorism in all forms. In fact, Sharif gave an assurance that Pakistan’s soil would not be allowed to be used for spreading terrorism. The treaty was hailed by the people of both India and Pakistan, as it was felt that it would usher in a new chapter in India-Pakistan relations. Before the ink of the Lahore declaration could dry, Pakistan army sent its soldiers, under the guise of irregular forces, to the mountainous region of Kargil, and captured the Tiger Hill. The brain behind the surprise attack was Pervez Musharraf, COAS of the Pakistan army, who later went on to become Pakistan’s president. The conflict led to death of hundreds of soldiers because of the foolish indiscretion. The world community condemned Pakistan for the Kargil conflict, as it had all the potential to escalate into an all0out war between the two nuclear nations. It has been seen that every time the civilian leaders of both the countries make genuine attempts to normalise the relations, it is followed by either escalation at the border or through terrorist attacks. There was a feeling in India that the Pakistan’s military establishment was working at cross-purposes with the civilian government’s efforts in building bridges with India. Unfortunately, there appears to be two power centres operating in Pakistan. On December 2001, terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament, followed by the Mumbai attacks in 2008. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s government has failed to bring a closure to the matter by acting against the perpetrators of the crime. In fact, the mastermind behind the attack is often seen addressing public rallies in Pakistan, which gives an impression that such people have the patronage of the establishment. The same pattern emerged when the Indian prime minister made an impromptu trip to Pakistan in December 2015 to meet Sharif, in an effort to put the relations back on track. It was followed by the Pathankot attack, which derailed the talks. Relations between the two countries have now reached its nadir when on 18 September, four heavily armed terrorists, who had allegedly come across the border, attacked an army base camp in Uri in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which led to the death of 17 Indian soldiers. This probably was the worst attack ever carried out by terrorists on the Indian security forces. Moreover, this attack aimed at further exacerbating the growing unrest in the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley. There was uproar in India demanding for retribution over the killing of the soldiers. The Indian prime minister assured the nation that the killing of the soldiers would soon be avenged. The people thought that this was another statement made by the leader of the country to diffuse the issue. Sadly, every time the issue of conducting a proxy war by through the terrorists is brought to the attention of Pakistan’s government, it is accompanied by a denial. Even the US and other countries have brought the issue of terrorist camps and the need for dismantling them to the attention of Pakistan. However, when India’s concerns over the Pak army’s role in sending the terrorists were ignored, India conducted a “surgical strike” on September 29 in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir across the Line of Control (Loc) allegedly dismantling between seven to eight terrorist camps. According to sources from the defence ministry, over 38 terrorists were killed. The Pakistan army has denied any such attack having taken place. India and Pakistan must realise that acts of aggression from both the sides have the potential of a full-scale war. As both the countries have nuclear capability, any war could bring large-scale destruction to both. Both must realise that in any war the ultimate sufferers are the people. The issue has become so politically charged one cannot think of any solution that is acceptable to both the countries. In fact, while Pakistan is forcing India to go for a plebiscite in the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley, India, on the other hand, is demanding that all presently occupied territories captured in 1947 be returned to it. Because of the hardened positions, no solution is possible to the dispute. In fact, this complex and intractable dispute requires an out of the box solution for a resolution of the dispute. The best approach would be for both the sides to accept the present status quo, and accept the Line of Control as the official border. This requires India to give up its rights over the territories held by Pakistan. Further, both the countries should give complete autonomy to the people, which would entail holding their own elections, with administration and internal security falling under the elected government. Allow ingress and egress to people on both the sides to visit one another without a visa. Army and other paramilitary forces, from both the countries, should be made to hand over the security to the local police, and they should be deployed at the border or outside the state. The writer is a freelance columnist and political commentator