(IPS) analysis The first-ever visit by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to Pakistan and India began this week amid the roar of artillery, as Indian security forces pummeled Kashmiri militants who were allegedly waiting to cross over the border in that disputed territory with support from Islamabad.

The visit ended yesterday amid the heightening of differences between India and Pakistan over approaches to the troubled Kashmir issue and to the shape of a future government in Afghanistan that would replace the Taliban regime.

Powell's discussions with President General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan were successful in securing Islamabad's backing for the US-led war effort in Afghanistan - in the face of strong internal opposition, especially from the religious right.

But his talks with Indian leaders were far less successful in narrowing differences or divergences. Indeed, Powell's visit has served to further polarise differences within the Indian policy-making establishment over Kashmir and how to deal with ''terrorism''.

Moderates in the establishment broadly favour supporting the US war against 'terrorism', while demanding that the world recognise the threat posed to India by 'cross-border terrorism', as New Delhi terms Pakistan's covert support for secessionist militants in Kashmir.

Policy hawks or hardliners, however, stand for an aggressive military posture against ''terrorism'', including 'hot pursuit' of militants and 'punitive' strikes against them.

Powell's arrival in South Asia saw the hawks temporarily winning out in their contest with the moderates. Hence the 'punitive' strikes on Sunday and Monday, which killed 30 militants and destroyed ''at least'' 11 posts on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control (LoC) that runs across Kashmir.

This also coincided with reappointment on Monday of George Fernandes as India's defence minister after a seven month-long gap, at the behest of the far-right wing of the Hindu-chauvinist Bharatiya Janata Party that leads India's ruling 26-party National Democratic Alliance.

'Central issue'

Powell apparently counselled restraint upon Indian leaders, repeating his statement in Islamabad that what is most needed in South Asia is a dialogue for reconciliation. He even tried to soothe ruffled sensitivities over his reference to Kashmir as 'the central issue' between India and Pakistan by saying he meant it was 'a central' or 'important' issue.

Powell also invited Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to visit Washington on Nov 9, thus indicating that the US accords high symbolic priority to relations with India and will pursue them in parallel with its South Asian agenda focused on the India-Pakistan-US triangle.

However, Indian leaders are disappointed that Powell did not explicitly side with them on Kashmir or accept their characterisation of 'cross-border terrorism' as the main problem in Kashmir.

They obtained no assurance from him that Washington treats its relationship with India as a long-term and ''strategic'' one - distinct from the temporary, 'tactical' alliance with Pakistan.

Powell and his counterpart, Jaswant Singh, do not seem to have discussed or resolved India-Pakistan differences over the composition of the regime that could replace the Taliban.

India strongly backs the Northern Alliance, a largely non-Pashtun grouping of ethnic minorities. Pakistan created and sponsors the Taliban, the bulk of which it would like to preserve unchanged (albeit under a new leadership) and insert into a new government in Kabul as its dominant core. (The United States has not outlined its preferences yet).

New Delhi would like Washington to name Pakistan as the source of terrorism in Kashmir and to support its own 'fight against terrorism'. But it also insists that the Kashmir issue is strictly 'bilateral' and that there must no third-party or international mediation in its settlement.

Given this contradictory approach, and their deeply divided attitude towards such as security and terrorism, Indian policy-makers are unlikely to have been much pleased by Powell's description of India and the United States as 'natural' allies and their 'shared' values of democracy. They are unlikely to agree among themselves on how best to win US approbation.

Thus, the coming period is likely to see internal differences between Indian moderates and hawks grow further.

'Punitive raids'

In the last two days, these differences became manifest in the way the foreign ministry and the army/defence ministry respectively described the border incidents in Kashmir, including 'punitive' strikes.

The foreign ministry called the actions ''routine, normal and local'', and warned against exaggerating their importance.

The army called them 'punitive' raids calculated to prevent and penalise incursions into the Indian part of Kashmir from across the LoC.

Later, the defence ministry too softened the tone and called them 'retaliatory' strikes. This clearly alarmed US diplomats here.

On Tuesday night, the foreign ministry tried to control the 'damage' through a flurry of telephone calls to the US embassy to explain that the gunfire across the LoC was not part of a new Indian strategy to flush out terrorists in Kashmir.

However, for the hawks, that is exactly what it was. They have been advocating 'hot pursuit' of militants into Pakistan for some years. They felt particularly emboldened by the Sept 11 carnage and the US declaration of 'war' against terrorism. This, they reckon, would give cover to India's own effort to sort out its 'terrorism problem' by mainly military means.

The hawks comprise leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the fascist, secret society-like group that is the BJP's ideological mentor and organisational gatekeeper, and associated organisations and leaders such as Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani.

In recent months, George Fernandes has moved close to this group. He shares its Sinophobia and extreme revulsion for Pakistan.

Fernandes relied on the RSS to secure his very controversial return to the Vajpayee Cabinet, seven months after he resigned in the wake of a major expose by the web-based newspaper Tehelka.com of extensive corruption in arms deals, involving defence ministry officials.

This was based on irrefutable evidence recorded by hidden cameras assuring a deception-based 'sting' operation. The government instituted a judicial inquiry into this scandal and Fernandes repeatedly declared that he would not return to the Cabinet until cleared by the inquiry.

Fernandes openly advocates a ''ruthless'' policy to flush out and eliminate the Kashmir militants. The maverick that he is, Fernandes is expected to continue to stir up things and make trouble for the moderates.

Nuclear threats

What makes his new policy of launching 'punitive' attacks particularly dangerous is that both India and Pakistan have on-going military exercises in and around Kashmir. The Indian exercise is 'Operation Kamyab' (success), while the Pakistani annual exercise is called 'Operation Khabardar (be warned) 2001'.

Contrary to official damage-limitation briefings in New Delhi, local reports suggest that the Indian army used heavy artillery to destroy reinforced posts which are not vulnerable to weapons listed in the official briefing such as ''small arms, air defence guns, automatic grenade launchers and mortars''.

Television reports from across the border, from Sialkot in Pakistan, also corroborate extensive damage to property, probably caused by artillery shells.

Such a confrontation could easily spin out of control and cause havoc. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, but with few safeguards against their panicky use or accidental and unauthorised use.

In their last extended military engagement at Kargil, across the LoC, in 1999, the rival neighbours exchanged threats to use nuclear weapons 13 times.