Knowing that, it could have been anticipated that these matters would arise in one form or another at NAM. Unprecedented though it is for a chairman of NAM to make a mention of Kashmir in his opening address, Mandela's language scarcely called for the prickly reaction from India that followed.

Vajpayee's strongly worded protest in private to Mandela and `loud and clear' rejection of third-party mediation in his own address to the summit, will probably play well back home in India. Abroad it is bound to be seen as protesting too much.

It is quite out of character for one of the key architects of the non-aligned movement to put on such a display of hypersensitivity. Many members of NAM have a problem with Pokharan and the poor state of India-Pakistan relations. That is a fact of life.

It cannot be wished away. Indiandiplomacy can help keep the embarrassment for India at the minimum. But at the end of the day the assertion of the principle of bilateralism is not enough. It has to be recognised that developing countries will not swing behind India as one until the bilateral process produces some positive results.

It will be a pity if the third-party mediation business diverts attention from a major political initiative at NAM with which India is associated and in which significant Indian interests are involved.

This is the Egyptian proposal for an international conference on collective action to counter international terrorism. In such a conference lie answers to the concerns of many countries.

Since the missile attacks by the US on Afghanistan and Sudan many questions have been raised about the legality and effectiveness of unilateral action against terrorists. Terrorists with access to billion-dollar funds, sophisticated weapons and communications are an international scourge and demand an internationalresponse.

As India knows well, no single country working on its own can hope to shut down training camps or arms supply channels and sanctuaries or halt the movement of terrorists across its borders.

The US-sponsored conference at Sharm el Sheik a few years ago sought to deny international terrorists the legitimacy and financial and political support they received in some countries in the Middle East. But Washington did not follow up on that effort by putting together a wider multilateral front. It chose ad hoc unilateral action instead.

It is now up to the NAM to take the initiative on far-reaching and sustained counter-terrorism measures. Of primary importance as Vajpayee rightly said at Durban is agreement on the definition of terrorism. There can be no moral or political relativism on it.

It is an ``assault on humanity'' wherever it occurs and whatever its purpose. That is a sound basis on which to proceed with getting agreement on a conference under the aegis of the UN. NAM can prove itsrelevance in today's world by committing itself to an issue of great concern to all countries whether or not they are known terrorist targets.