``The reintroduction of the caveat (linking a resolution of the J&K dispute to the proposal) is not acceptable to us, since it negates the very concept of non-aggression,'' said a spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, adding, ``we reject any linkage between the two.''

The Pakistani proposal, made during the recent Foreign Secretary-level dialogue between the two countries, has been done with any eye on Washington, analysts here said. ``It makes Islamabad look good, proposing a non-aggression pact with India. In effect it seeks to subvert the Shimla agreement, which calls for the retention of the status quo between the two countries until the Kashmir dispute is resolved,'' the analysts said. ``What Pakistan is saying is that unless the J&K dispute is resolved, there can be no non-aggression pact with India. That directlycontravenes the Shimla agreement,'' the analysts added.

The suggestion of a bilateral non-aggression pact is not new : Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who in fact took the Kashmir issue to the UN in January 1949, also proposed such a formula to his counterpart in Islamabad Liaquat Ali Khan, who is believed to have turned a cold shoulder.

Nobody heard of the proposal again until the 1980s. Then last year, from the podium of the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued an invitation to India to join Pakistan in such a pact. No offer was, however, made bilaterally to New Delhi, until last week.

Pakistan's proposals on confidence building measures, include setting up of a nuclear risk reduction centre, a bilateral agreement on banning nuclear tests, acceptance of a minimum nuclear deterrent, prevention of violation of air space and territorial waters and revival of the pre-Shimla agreement border ground rules.

India's proposals include, an agreement to prevent nuclear conflict throughaccidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons, assurance that flight tests would not be in each other's direction, cessation of firing incidents on line of control and asking Pakistan to forthwith stop aiding and abetting terrorist activities in India.

Nevertheless, senior Ministry officials pointed out, the real gain in the first round of the revived dialogue was a ``definite improvement in the atmospherics'' between the two sides. Barely three months ago, after Vajpayee and Sharif met in Colombo in end-July, the former had characterised the dialogue with India as a ``big zero.'' Last week, it was announced that the second round of the ``composite dialogue'' would take place in Delhi in the first half of February.

Both sides seemed to have gained in Islamabad: while India conceded the Pakistani demand for separating a discussion on Kashmir as well as confidence-building measures from the other five points on the 8-point agenda, Islamabad accepted New Delhi's view that a discussion in `totality' wasthe only way out in moving forward the dialogue.