The Saudis have long had close ties with Pakistan. They generously finance the madrasas, particularly those that emphasize a constructionist view of Islam. They also hire Pakistani troops and intelligence personnel, often for protection of assorted Saudi royalty. Some Saudi princes are known to favor Pakistani brides.
All this by way of saying that, when it comes to weighing in on the intractable Pakistan-India dispute over Kashmir and other disputed territories, the Saudi have always tacitly or sometimes openly sided with Pakistan. Citizen-diplomats such as Mansoor Ijaz mean well when they shuttle between Islamabad and New Delhi to bring about an enduring peace in the Subcontinent. But my own journalistic dealings with both Pakistani and Indian policy makers suggest that such efforts are perceived as amateurish.
When Ijaz says -- in his Christian Science Monitor article -- that Prince Sultan visited Pakistan in order to obtain assurance for the US that Pakistan would not use nuclear weapons during its conflict with India over the mountainous territory of Kargil, the question that arises in my mind is why would Islamabad need a Saudi royal to communicate such an assurance. The Pakistanis have a 24-hour open line to Washington. The Americans always have had canny diplomats posted in Islamabad.
It would have been far more useful for Prince Sultan to visit India to offer reasurances that Saudi money wasn't going to terrorists operating in Kashmir. Without Saudi support, the Kashmiri terrorists would be rendered impotent. I don't think that Pakistan seriously considered using nuclear weapons against India during Kargil; the scenario makes for nice flights of speculation, but Pakistani policy makers -- like their Indian counterparts -- are far more prudent than what some freelance commentators would have us believe.