The Chinese have accepted the fact that the situation in the subcontinent is serious enough to set aside historical biases and discount the premature articulations of Defence Minister George Fernandes last year. They have been candid and specific to an extent that is rare in Asian diplomacy. It is nice to hear the usual platitudes about boosting bilateral trade and even more pleasant to hear again the word Panchsheel, which brings back memories of a kinder era. India would not have expected more. The Chinese have gone far beyond the call of duty in suggesting a range of issues in which they would like to cooperate, all of which are in India's interest.

China's desire to begin asecurity dialogue owes to two factors. The more obvious is the US scheme to widen its security umbrella in Asia through Japan, which will soon give it the capability to intervene militarily in the region. Given the enthusiasm with which NATO intervened in Kosovo, bypassing the UN, China has reason to be concerned.

The more immediate reason is China's appreciation of the fact that it cannot afford to have a nuclear conflict in South Asia. Though there is evidence that the Chinese have exported military technology to Pakistan -- and though it reacted negatively to India's nuclear tests -- they are hard-nosed enough to realise that the game has got out of hand. Hence its sudden volte face on Pakistan and its insistence that the Kargil conflict be settled diplomatically. Fortunately, the Indian government is of the same mind.

An isolated, desperate Nawaz Sharif seems to be the only votary of war in the subcontinent, especially after being spurned by Beijing. The only factor in the way of a meaningfulIndia-China dialogue is the unresolved dispute over the Line of Actual Control. Two nations cannot cooperate if their armies have to remain in a state of readiness on their common border. India and China should therefore facilitate the work of the Joint Working Group set up to resolve their boundary-related differences.

China's sudden change of heart is of a piece with the international response to Kargil. The US, famously responsible for arming the Taliban and promoting Pakistan's ISI, now praises New Delhi's forbearance. Despite the repeal of the Pressler Amendment, it is unlikely to arm Pakistan again. The UN, usually receptive to Pakistani representatives' colourful tales of Indian excesses in Kashmir, now urges respect for the Line of Control in a statement that is implicitly directed at Pakistan.

The threat of holocaust has a wonderfully restorative effect on the wits of even the most committed partisan. China's offer for a meaningful dialogue is probably only the first of a series of internationalovertures. The Indian diplomatic establishment should be prepared to set right the idea of India in the international mind. After all, with its laxity and its poverty of ideas, it is responsible for the poor esteem in which India has been held so far.