ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Like helpless actors India and Pakistan are moving toward a deadly conflict. Once again the United States and the international community are trying to prevent a potential nuclear war.

India-Pakistan enmity revolves around the dispute over the area known as Jammu and Kashmir. The people there were promised the right to self-determination by the United Nations. India refuses to allow a referendum, concerned that the Muslim population will secede. Pakistan backs the Kashmiri move for freedom.

The latest crisis started on May 14 when Kashmiri militants, camouflaged as Indian soldiers, mowed down women and children with guns and grenades in the disputed valley. The message was clear: If the militants could target Indian army families in their homes, the Indian soldiers at the Line of Control between the two countries could hardly deter them.

New Delhi accuses Islamabad of backing the militants. Islamabad denies this.

The Indian soldiers whose wives, and children were killed are putting pressure on Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India to exact retribution through military retaliation that could easily spill into the fourth war between the South Asian neighbors.

India has expelled Pakistan's high commissioner. Vajpayee called for a "decisive fight" against Pakistan. The drums of war are beating.

The international community has high stakes in the region. Pakistan is now a key ally of the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan. The last thing Washington would like to see develop is the war against terror deflected by the war between India and Pakistan.

If the militants wanted to deflect attention from the heat of allied forces against Al Qaeda in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, they succeeded by helping to provoke a clash between India and Pakistan.

A critical error by the international community was the conclusion that a military dictator could defuse tension between India and Pakistan or prevent the rise of the tidal wave of extremism which is now engulfing the region.

Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, the great white hope in the fight against terrorism, is sinking in a quick sand of his own making. His tenure was marked by the rise of extremism, militancy, terrorism and regional tension. His lone ranger politics pits him against domestic political forces polarizing the country. Given this history, it is unlikely that dialogue proposals can halt the march to war now taking place.

There is one way that the prospects of war can be prevented: Regime change in Islamabad offers the possibility of halting hostilities to permit a new government to make a fresh start in confidence building.

The voices of the international community and the Pakistani armed forces are critical determinants as to the calculations made. It is their voices which will determine whether General Musharraf resigns to defuse the crisis or clings on to power in a show of nuclear brinksmanship.

Reports indicate that the Pakistani generals are uneasy. They initially opposed the holding of the controversial referendum by which Musharraf tried to elect himself Pakistan's president.

The view of Pakistan's important ally, America, is pivotal too. The White House was vocal in its support for Musharraf. President George W. Bush called him "my friend." Now he will have to choose between a man who is considered a friend and risking a limited war that could get out of hand.

A military setback means trouble for Musharraf. Far better for him and the region that he agrees to regime change to prevent hostilities that could trigger a nuclear nightmare.

And far better for New Delhi to accept such a regime change as face-saving than allow a limited war that could spill out of control.

The writer, Pakistan's former prime minister, leads the opposition People's Party.

Copyright © 2002 the International Herald Tribune

###