Well wishers of peace in South Asia are disappointed, yet once again, to see how Indian opportunism has completed the cycle starting from the inappropriately arrogant remark by Dr Manmohan Singh during the Pak-India summit level interaction in Russia, then prime ministerial level extraordinary cozying up in Egypt, to the extent of swallowing the Balochistan pill; and now back to a naught during the recent 'only warm handshake session by the foreign ministers in New York. Foreign ministers meeting was a purposeless interaction whose fate was sealed, in advance, by the unwarranted terse remarks about Pakistan made by the Indian prime minister a few days prior to the meeting. These three meetings have achieved nothing, except exposing Machiavellian mentality underwriting Indias statesmanship. Yet once again, and now by umpteenth times, it has brought to fore the deliberate ambiguity inherent in Indias Pakistan policy management. Lack of consistency and succumbing to expediency clearly come out as over-arching principles of this policy, that appears to have only one constant factor, and that is opportunism. It is now abundantly clear that aberration of the Joint communiqu released at the sidelines of the NAM summit was an opportunist manoeuvre. At that time one, oft floated, reason for the nicety displayed by the Indian side was to placate US secretary of state during her visit planned immediately after the NAM summit and grab what all she had to offer during her follow up visit to '123 Agreement, commonly known as 'US-India Nuclear deal. It was perceived that after accruing the gains from America, an Indian volte-face would follow. Going back on words and pledges is nothing unusual in the Indian diplomatic culture, especially when it comes to Pakistan affairs. One such stark summersault was by the founding prime minister of India on the Kashmir issue. Ever since, nasty tradition is being carried forth by his successors. Indeed there is a bipartition consensus on following Machiavellian (read Chanakyan) model while handling relationship with Pakistan. Nevertheless, to the chagrin of the Indian leadership, this approach may not remain viable for a long time. These days the Theory of Realism is becoming more and more relevant in international interactions as well. Old patterns of pledges and counter-pledges are giving way to straightforward interstate dealings through transparent and sustainable policy contours. Emerging concept of global village is reshaping the concept of sovereignty through the evolution of interdependencies; deceitful and mystified diplomatic practices are fading out pretty fast. It is in this context that the OIC has nominated Saudi Arabia as its special representative on the Kashmir issue. India has responded with usual affront by declaring it as interference in its internal affairs as Kashmir is Indias proclaimed integral part. India is a long time defaulter of the UNSC resolution on Kashmir. It may no longer be possible to continue to hoodwink the comity of nations and carry on with the mantra of atoot ang (integral part) regarding Kashmir. OIC has since long been maintaining a contact group on Kashmir. Now graduation to the appointment of a special representative is a welcome step. It indicates the enhanced attention that the Kashmir issue is attracting at the international level. India has been giving cold shoulder to Mr Holbrooke, special representative of President Obama on Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is believed that he has the tacit mandate to pave the way for a just solution to the issue. Most of his attempts to visit India have been torpedoed on one pretext or the other. We will keenly wait to see how India treats the OIC representative. This indeed is a window of opportunity for India to open up for a solution because given the clout that Saudi Arabia enjoys amongst the masses of Pakistan (as indeed amongst Indian Muslims), a solution sponsored by OIC through Saudi Arabia would have wider acceptance amongst the Muslim community of South Asia and as indeed of the entire world. There arent much promising prospects if the Kashmir issue is left to bilateral negotiations. Pak-India dialogue has a poor track record. When it comes to not talking or conducting purposeless protracted negotiations with pre-planned motives to stall them, it is an art mastered by India to perfection. The much-touted composite dialogue that was presumably about to solve almost every issue between these two states is now in doldrums due to Indian high handedness. Nevertheless, it must be revived at the earliest because mature states resolve their issues bilaterally. Third party interventions do not bode well for sustainable neighbourly relations. Prudence was expected to come to fore, after the Indian elections. De-linking composite dialogue from the Mumbai occurrence is indeed long overdue. India needs to realise that the Mumbai issue can be better handled by making it a subset of the composite dialogue; it cannot be sustained as a show stopper for an indefinite period. Another aspect that needs attention of the world community is acknowledgement of the rising Indian influence in Afghanistan as documented by General McChrystal in his recently submitted 'Initial Assessment. His report quite elaborately mentions how India is negatively using its disproportionate diplomatic presence in Afghanistan to destabilise Pakistan. The general is of the opinion, and rightly so, that Pakistan would soon be compelled to take countermeasures to offset this Indian pressure. Balochistan saga was taken up by the Pakistani side during the meeting of the two prime ministers in Egypt. Now realisation of Pakistans oft-reported concerns by the American field commander in Afghanistan should indeed be an eye-opener for India. Such nefarious meddling can no longer be kept covert. If India and Pakistan are to achieve a sustainable good neighbourly relation, they have to evolve a robust bilateral mechanism for crisis management. There is a need to look into the possibility of a bilateral standing commission to handle emergent situations under an institutional umbrella. Unnecessary alarming actions could be avoided through such conflict management arrangements. Whenever India is able to evolve a prudent Pakistan policy, it shall always find Pakistan ready for a sustainable constructive engagement. However, Pakistan cannot go on insisting on resumption of composite dialogue, unilaterally, forever. It will be unfortunate if Pakistan runs out of patience and assumes a tit for tat posture writ dialogue. There is a need to go beyond the bounded rationale to surmount obstructive inhibitions. Nevertheless, it is a matter of reciprocation of good intentions and actions from both sides. We need to move ahead and avoid returning to square one position again and again The writer is a retired air officer of the Pakistan Air Force. Email: khalid3408@gmail.com