Pakistan is on the threshold of Pax Musharraf. Which is good for India.

Believe it or not, India faces a far more predictable and less dangerous enemy in Musharraf than Sharief, Bhutto et al in spite of greater competence in military and political affairs.

While Musharraf is no friend of India, he knows that starting wars with India result in bruises and defeat. Uncle Sam's avuncular and benign glances, crucial to his tenure, can be obtained only if he cooperates in hunting down Al Qaeda, an endeavour that would leave little time for misadventures in the Kashmir valley.

This is in contrast to professional politicians like Sharief and Bhutto, whose careers were practically tied to promoting militancy making bellicose pronouncements at the best of times. The lack of external support rendered both captive to internal constituencies increasingly under the sway of Islam. The result was much saber rattling and aggressive pronouncements.

Which could have been amusing, excepting that politicians don't always recognise the difference between rhetoric and reality. The militant audience would demand action to substantiate commitment resulting in a fresh spate of violence in Kashmir.

The politicians' obsession with equalling India resulted in an arms race where any armament acquired by India had to be matched by Pakistan. When India unveiled Prithvi, the surface-to-air missile, Pakistan immediately countered with a Ghori. India's exploding nuclear devices in mid 1998 resulted in Pakistan doing the same, carrots and sticks from the international community notwithstanding.

What can be a bigger nightmare than a politician with access to nuclear missiles who plays to the gallery demanding 'action' in a 'democracy?' Converting rhetoric to reality could result in consequences too terrible to comprehend. A dictator can afford to be indifferent to public opinion exactly by virtue of his being a dictator. Musharraf will desist from nuclear warfare because of comprehending the consequences better.

Secondly, the Pakistani army has been a quasi-political 'party' overthrowing and rejecting political process as per its convenience. Political decision-making is meaningless in a democracy at the mercy of the army (read Pakistan). Negotiating with politicians is meaningless since the army may well disapprove and overturn the decision.

This feature was painfully evident in the drama of the Lahore goodwill trip which was converted into the Kargil fiasco. It is generally agreed that the Pakistani army started the Kargil conflict despite Nawaz Sharief's explicit opposition just to flex muscle and indicate its unhappiness over not being consulted.

Negotiating with a benign Dr Jekyll is meaningless when Mr Hyde has to approve of the decisions. Negotiating directly with Musharraf gives India an opportunity to understand his intentions better as well as arrive at implementable conclusions.

Musharraf's continued presence will result in the development of a stable, long lasting policy on the Indian side not subject to the frequent flux of the Aya Rahim, Gaya Rahim phenomenon of the Sharief-Bhutto days.

Musharraf running Pakistan for another five years is infinitely better than Sharief and Bhutto ruining the subcontinent for over 2 years. The fiction churned by self-proclaimed Western pujaris of democracy notwithstanding, may Musharraf win the referendum!