NEW DELHI (Reuters) — For nearly six decades it has been one of the most intractable disputes on the planet, but these days India and Pakistan are finally talking similar language on Kashmir.Both sides talk about self-rule and soft borders, supported by some kind of common system to liaise over the disputed region, plans which seem to offer the nuclear-armed neighbours the chance to link hands across this sensitive border.

Is this, as optimists suggest, a historic opportunity to bury the hatchet and forge a new South Asia? Or is it just a mirage? A gulf of trust continues to divide both sides, nationalist pressures limit politicians’ freedom to compromise and militant violence hangs over the whole process.

The devil lies in not just in the detail but also in the journey. “We are talking about some kind of Holy Grail, and to reach there you will have to address the trust deficit,” said C. Uday Bhaskar of New Delhi’s Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. “In principle it is not an impossible goal, but traversing this is a minefield.”

Since he first signalled a willingness to give up Pakistan’s claim to the whole of Kashmir in 2003, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has repeatedly offered India the chance to compromise.

His proposals, repeated in an interview to an Indian news channel this week, offer a phased solution to the dispute. The militarised frontline dividing Kashmir would be converted into a soft border, while both sides of the state would be demilitarised and offered some form of autonomy or self-rule. India and Pakistan would set up some kind of joint body or mechanism, involving Kashmiris, to “supervise” the region.

So far, so good. In March, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh used similar language when he talked about making borders irrelevant and setting up “cooperative, consultative mechanisms”.

Violence and mistrust, however, mean this vision is still a distant dream, analysts say. India accuses Pakistan of supporting a bloody insurgency in Kashmir as well as extremist violence in other parts of India. The memory of a series of bomb attacks on crowded commuter trains in Mumbai in July, which killed at least 186 people, remains raw. India blames Pakistan for that attack.

“Cross-border terrorism would have to come to an end, or have to be considerably brought down by Pakistan for this to move further,” said Ashok Mehta, a retired Indian army major-general.

New Delhi’s unwillingness to yield on Kashmir is reinforced as long as the killings continue — its Hindu nationalist opposition and conservative establishment make sure of that. Yet Pakistan’s unwillingness to surrender the militancy card is only reinforced by New Delhi’s perceived intransigence.

“They are asking that militancy should be stopped. This cannot be done,” said Khalid Mehmood of Islamabad’s Institute of Regional Studies. “I can say plainly that Pakistan will never give up the leverage it has. The only leverage Pakistan has is that the situation is not normal in Kashmir and militant activities are continuing. If those stop, then why should India hold talks with Pakistan?”

Behind the scenes, India and Pakistan are thought to be discussing Musharraf’s proposals on “back-channel” negotiations. But the talks have revealed a number of points of contention. Musharraf suggests autonomy and joint supervision apply only to the mainly Muslim Kashmir Valley and its surroundings. India would abandon its claim to Pakistan’s overwhelmingly Muslim Northern Areas and Pakistan to India’s mainly Hindu Jammu region and mainly Buddhist region of Ladakh, he says.

Yet New Delhi would be very reluctant to divide Kashmir and give special treatment to the mainly Muslim districts. It would also be hesitant to give Pakistan any meaningful control over Indian Kashmir, granting it a “victory” Islamabad failed to win on the battlefield.

India’s junior foreign minister Anand Sharma scorned the idea of negotiations “before the media”, but Musharraf’s latest interview has put pressure on New Delhi to react. In Kashmir, even pro-India politicians said Musharraf had bent as far as he could. “There’s a point beyond which he’s not going to be able to go, and I think he has reached that point,” said Omar Abdullah, head of the National Conference party. “If we don’t reach out and respond to what he’s saying in a positive manner, I’m afraid that this sort of opportunity will slip us by.”