For prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee it must have been déjà vu. A year ago, he had used the United Nations forum to caution the world against terrorism, citing Kashmir as an obvious example. And then a year later, terrorists struck at the World Trade Center in New York on September 11. Yet, two months later at the very same forum, the prime minister could do nothing but watch his Pakistani counterpart and Kargil-author, Pervez Musharraf, steal the thunder as it were while making a case against global terrorism.

UK SPECIAL

OTHER UK SPECIAL STORIES India Calling Media: Game of Survival Development: A New Lifeline Looking Glass Politics: Rising From the Roots Business: Fall From Grace

Where the General scored was not in substance, but in form. His apparent style of straight talking was lapped up by the media-the crowning point of which was a front page picture in The New York Times. If there were a propaganda war or a battle for the mind, then India lost it. Yet, when the dust settles on Musharraf's theatrics and President George Bush's dialogue with the two bitter enemies from South Asia, the question that begs to be asked is: Does the long-term really corroborate the short-term perspective?

"I really don't think India lost out," says Ambassador Teresita C. Schaffer, director of the South Asia Programme of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "The fact that the US created time to accommodate India in a working visit at such a stage, was more important than what they discussed. As far as Pakistan was concerned, the President's visit was vastly exaggerated because of the dramatic turn of military events in Afghanistan," she says.

Indian officials were reasonably satisfied with the turn of events. Senior officials in the delegation averred that India had taken great pains to ensure that it tread delicately as on the one hand it did not want to sound "churlish" by demanding a strong statement on Kashmir at this juncture and on the other had to ensure that "it was not taken for granted" by the US.

"I think India's objective of getting Indo-US relations back on track after losing some momentum after September 11 was pretty successful," says Deepa Ollapally, South Asia regional security specialist at the Washington-based United States Institute of Peace.

According to her, the decision by the US not to release the F-16s to Pakistan suggests that Americans are listening to India. A balance-sheet comparison (see table), based on the joint statements that the two leaders made with President Bush respectively, endorses this perception. At the end of the Vajpayee-Bush deliberations the two sides had agreed to a host of new initiatives, including cooperation in nuclear power, space and in the battle against terrorism-which entails a visit by Home Minister L.K. Advani.

Where Pakistan is concerned, the accent was on platitudes for doing what the Americans describe as a "180 degree" turn on the Taliban. The US side refused to relent on arms sale, including supply of the long contracted F-16s. And, again on Kashmir, President Bush refused to be drawn into taking sides, stating that the two countries should resolve the issue through diplomacy.

"Over the last two years an institutional relationship has developed between India and the US. Unlike in the case of Pakistan, which is individual-based and still fragile," says Ollapally.

The problem will be if Pakistan's domestic situation takes a turn for the worse as the war in Afghanistan comes to the south, and the Americans feel forced to shore up General Musharraf even further. Then Indo-US relations are really going to be tested.

"For long, it has been a perception that it is a zero-sum game. It is never that way. There would be a lot of resistance to it, within the US, regardless of whoever is in power. The US will not be drawn into choosing sides on Kashmir. It wants good relations with both and this hasn't changed after September 11," says Andrew Koch, Washington's bureau chief for Jane's Defence Weekly.

Some nuance this further and make a case for a deeper relationship between India and the US. Welcoming the prime minister in the House of Representatives, Benjamin A. Gilman, the Republican Congressman from New York, said, "Not all members of the coalition are built on the same set of democratic values that our society is built on and India's society is built on. For many, this coalition is a marriage of convenience. With respect to India, it is a marriage based on shared and common values of pluralism, respect for minorities, freedom of religion, privileges of voting, freedom of press and expression." And the co-chair of the 120-strong India caucus, Jim Mcdermott emphasised the need to forge a strong military relationship with India. "More important is the the defence relationship," he said.

The preliminary meeting for resuming military dialogue between India and the US will take place when the Defence Policy Group-the apex body guiding the direction and extent of defence cooperation-meets in New Delhi next month. In the final analysis it is clear that the prime minister lost the propaganda battle, but may yet win the war for a superior long term relationship with the US.