By Simon Denyer
NEW DELHI, Nov 12 (Reuters) - India and Pakistan aim to revive their peace process through a new joint anti-terrorism mechanism this week, but they will do well to avoid another round of mud-slinging, analysts say.
Tuesday and Wednesday's talks between top foreign ministry officials are the first in 10 months, and follow a series of bomb attacks in Mumbai in July that killed 186 people and sent a shockwave through the peace process.
Although trust is still in short supply, at least the two sides are talking rather than rattling sabres, analysts say.
"The very fact that talks have resumed is something in itself, that is important," said Gopalaswami Parthasarathy, a former Indian envoy to Pakistan. "But I wouldn't place any great expectations on the talks themselves." India controversially blamed July's attack on Pakistan's military intelligence, and has promised to present evidence to back up that claim at this week's talks.
But it also wants to work with its rival to set up a new mechanism to fight extremism.
"I personally don't place much faith on that," added Parthasarathy. "It's a question of political will not mechanisms."
The peace process was launched in 2004 amid a surge of optimism, with India's then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee appearing to share an unlikely chemistry with Pakistan's military ruler Pervez Musharraf.
But Vajpayee was booted out of office in elections shortly afterwards, and it wasn't long before the momentum dissipated.
"At the moment, the peace process is in something of a stalemate," said retired Pakistani general and political analyst Talat Masood. "It surely needs another injection of life."
TALKS INEVITABLE
Vajpayee's successor, the soft-spoken Manmohan Singh, appears to have less control over his coalition government and over India's traditionally hawkish establishment.
"The feeling I get is that the prime minister is very keen to move forward on this but he doesn't know how to go about it," said a former chief of Indian intelligence.
Musharraf, on the other hand, has often seemed to seize the initiative, offering a series of compromises to unlock their seemingly intractable dispute over Kashmir, the picturesque Himalayan territory both countries covet.
But he has failed in India's eyes in one crucial regard. He has failed, New Delhi says, to cut Islamabad's ties to Islamist extremists responsible for violence in Indian Kashmir and increasingly in the rest of the country.
Back-channel negotiations have seen a useful exchange of ideas over Kashmir.
Pakistan now recognises India is not prepared to redraw boundaries, and both sides talk of a soft border in Kashmir to replace the heavily militarised frontline of today.
But concrete initiatives like a much-hyped bus between the capitals of divided territory have stalled in a morass of bureaucratic red tape. The bus now travels virtually empty, and the two Kashmirs are as divided as ever.
Even the back-channel is undermined by the violence.
"As long as there is violence in Kashmir, as long as there are incidents like the bombings in Mumbai, no government in Delhi will have the political space to move away from established positions on Kashmir," said Parthasarathy.
In one sense though, and in the words of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war".
It was just four years ago that South Asia teetered on the brink of a conflict that set nuclear alarm bells ringing.
"Neither government can get rid of the peace process," said Sukh Deo Muni who teaches at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. "People want it, there is no question."
