ISLAMABAD -- A Pakistani former secretary of foreign affairs and a seasoned analyst, Tanvir Ahmed Khan, on Saturday said that Iran, being a common friend, can help reduce differences between Pakistan and India.

During a lengthy interview with IRNA here, he threw light on the current Pakistan-India standoff, the Kashmir issue, Pakistan-Iran relations and peace prospects in Afghanistan.

"To my mind, in the given situation Iran is in a very good position to help reduce bitterness between the two arch rivals, as it enjoys friendly relations with Islamabad as well as New Delhi," he remarked.

However, he was quick to add, Pakistan has always been against a third party to mediate and India has been always shying away from such an option.

Pakistan, he pointed out, has repeatedly expressed its readiness to hold serious talks with India anywhere and anytime.

"Iran certainly can be instrumental in the current situation, but only if India shuns its inflexible attitude and gives an opportunity for a third-party mediation," the veteran diplomat maintained.

Similarly, he was of the view that the International Community, particularly the U.S, UK , China and Russia, should also come forward and help facilitate a dialogue on the core issue of Kashmir once a real de-escalation takes place.

To a question about the presence of Indian troops on its border with Pakistan, Tanvir Ahmed said that it is possible India could prolong the stay of its forces beyond October.

"I think, India will like to maintain the presence of its forces when general elections take place in Pakistan and in Indian Kashmir to keep Islamabad under pressure," he mentioned.

He was of the view that India was desperate to see assembly polls held in Kashmir and at any cost to show the international world, particularly its friends, that elections can be held to determine the views of the Kashmiris.

Tanvir even said that New Delhi may also be favorable to getting the endorsement of the state assembly for accession of Kashmir to India as a part of a future strategy to put an end to the conflict.

For India, these upcoming polls are of paramount significance for more than one reason, in particular, the heavy presence of its troops in the border with Pakistan in disputed Kashmir.

The Kashmiris, Tanvir said, had taken part in the state assembly polls in 1987 and, afterwards, regularly boycotted the exercise because of massive rigging by India.

Another reason for the presence of heavy troops was that India, he alleged, wanted to destabilize Pakistan and wanted to use the pretext that Islamabad was not serious in holding a dialogue on the Kashmir issue.

On the subject of de-escalation, he said Pakistan has taken certain measures toward this end, and has assured the world that henceforth there would be no movements across the Line of Control (LOC) which divides both parts of Kashmir.

One part of Kashmir is administered by Pakistan while the other by India, both countries have fought three wars, two over Kashmir.

However, he claimed, India, for its part and in response to the steps taken by Pakistan for de-escalation, had continued with its oppressive policy inside Kashmir, its search and destroy operations and its unprecedented deployment of forces on the border with Pakistan and the LOC.

He charged that the Indian response to Pakistan's peace gestures continues to be negative and have indicated that they will judge the Pak moves over a period of time instead of moving forces to peace time locations.

When asked what will be the future of the Kashmiris' struggle after Pakistan's assurance that there will be no cross-border movements, he said he believes the liberation movement will continue, maybe with even more impetus on the political side.

On the infiltration, the analyst said that it was a known historical fact that genuine and just freedom movements have always invariably attracted volunteers from the outside , to support his argument, the analyst mentioned the Spanish civil war and the struggles in Nigeria and in the Middle East.

He brushed aside Indian charges that Pakistan was actually behind the Kashmiri armed struggle, saying the campaign was indigenous and was being pushed ahead by Kashmiri fighters themselves.

"The graves of more than 80,000 Kashmiris in graveyards in Srinagar and elsewhere in Kashmir bear testimony to the fact that Kashmiris are behind the struggle to get rid of Indian occupation," he claimed. The Pakistani analyst hinted at the possibility of a pause in the militancy in the days to come in order to, what he said, "Provide India with another opportunity by trying the path of negotiations to resolve its problems with Pakistan."

However, he said, the best course will be the involvement of Pakistani and Indian representatives as well as from the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) in a purposeful dialogue on the Kashmir question.

The expert, to a question, said Pakistan had achieved two very rich dividends by siding with the war on terrorism: Revival of close relations with brotherly Iran and smashing of terrorist groups inside the country.

He said militant groups have been banned, several alleged terrorists suspected of being behind sectarian killings in the country, particularly in Punjab and Sindh, have been rounded up.

"Differences with Iran over Afghanistan had marred the countries' mutual relations and, this of course, was a very sad state of affairs to say the least," he remarked.

Tanvir was Pakistan's ambassador to Iran from 1987 to 1989.

He said: "In my understanding, Pakistan and Iran should work together because of their geopolitical proximity, especially in hotbeds like Afghanistan," he emphasized.

If Pakistan and Iran could harmonize and synchronize their policy toward Afghanistan, it will be nothing less than a historic development, he added.

"Both the nations have to play a key role jointly in rehabilitating and reconstructing Afghanistan," he said.

The analyst laid stress on peace and stability in Afghanistan, saying in line with these objectives Pakistan and Iran can play a major role in strengthening the Karzai government.

To a question about the U.S. real intention in its war on terrorism in this part of the world, he said: "Firstly, after the September 11 incidents, the U.S. declared that Al-Qaeda was behind the gory tragedy and will smash their network based in Afghanistan.

"Secondly, rich natural resources like gas and oil in the region are also in mind of the U.S. leadership. So its presence in the region is mainly for two purposes, and that is, to crush Al-Qaeda and take hold of the natural resources," he said. He also did not rule out the possibility that the U.S. may also want to put pressure on Iran because it is "a rapidly developing nation in the region."