How could flowers blossom here?

But first to India-Pakistan relations in the aftermath of that city’s siege by a handful of terrorists who took dozens of innocent lives. It’s more than just varying perceptions that dog India-Pakistan relations: neither fails the test of expecting the worse of the other. If the finger-pointing at Pakistan even as the crisis was unfolding was restrained, the situation perhaps would have been different today. If the rhetoric had stopped after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked for the ISI chief to be sent over for help with the investigations and President Zardari readily replied in the affirmative, posturing by the two sides perhaps would have been less antagonistic.

When Zardari went back on his promise the very next day for whatever reason, it sent relations spiraling down. Since then New Delhi and Islamabad have been talking at each other rather than to each other. The media war being fought in the two countries aside, Islamabad and New Delhi demand that the opposite side take the first step in defusing tensions. India wants concrete action taken against those it holds responsible for the Mumbai attacks; Pakistan wants concrete evidence before it takes any action. Had it been any country other than India, and in which case there perhaps would have been no allegations of ISI’s involvement in the matter, Pakistan’s response would have been different. When Gordon Brown or Condi Rice come to Islamabad and say that Pakistan must crack down against extremist groups, no eyebrows are raised; when India demands that so and so be handed over to it, all hell breaks loose. It’s simply bad blood that refuses to wash clean.

Logically, the unveiling by the media of the family of the known, lone survivor among the terrorists, Ajmal Kasab, in the Pakistani Punjab village of Faridkot should be all the proof anyone needed to establish that Pakistan’s soil was used by terrorists to carry out the assaults in Mumbai. But that is not the case anymore because of the ongoing media war. It makes the acceptance of the allegation on the part of Pakistan as being defeatist; unless India provides credible proof of the Lashkar-e-Toiba’s involvement, with or without assistance from the ISI. As passions run high “Pakistan shall not accede to any demand by India; a request may be considered” is what the mood is like, rightly or wrongly, on this side of the border.

Some in Pakistan may find it self-defeating that Islamabad should still insist on being given proof of its nationals’ involvement in the terrorist attacks by the Indians before it can take decisive action against militants operating in and out of this country, but such voices will now be considered cowardly given India’s threatening posture. The key question, as to why the will in Islamabad to act against these killers is so shaky, has taken the backseat. As regards the Mumbai outrage and the Indian reaction that followed it, the answer lies in the years of nurtured animosity at the worst, and mistrust at the ironical best, that have defined India-Pakistan relations. That’s why even otherwise sane Indians, as the aggrieved party, may now be baying for Pakistanis’ blood. A growing number of people in Pakistan have responded by going into denial that some Pakistanis might well have been involved in the Mumbai mayhem.

It is surprising and sad in equal measure what a threatening posture by New Delhi can do to Pakistanis. Even after the tracking down of at least one terrorist’s family here, the government has lost little credibility in its claim that India acted prematurely in assigning the blame for the Mumbai tragedy on terrorists operating from Pakistan. If it were not for a UN resolution declaring the Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its operatives as terrorists, the Islamist group’s leadership would still be out preaching hate and destruction of everyone who doesn’t subscribe to their worldview; thankfully a worldview not shared by the vast majority of Pakistanis.

Terrorist organisations like the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Toiba may have been banned and their leaders put under house arrest or forced to go underground but there is little evidence to suggest that such groups’ lower cadres will stop pursuing their destructive agenda. Suicide bombings targeting state institutions and personnel and attacks among rival sects in Pakistan have continued; proof, if one is needed, that merely banning such rogue outfits will not make them mend their ways. Sustained action to root out militancy is the only way to arrest the growing scourge of religious extremism, with or without prodding by India. It threatens Pakistan more than it does its neighbours.

Islamabad must realise that after the rude awakening in Mumbai, India may well be able to keep such rogue elements out of its territory by being more vigilant, even if that means imposing security measures bordering on paranoia. It is Pakistan that can burn in the fire ignited in its backyard by some of its own, vilest people who are allowed to do so — largely unhindered.

Pakistan’s democratic leadership can act independently of its armed forces if it enjoys good public support on a given issue; the army does not like to be on the wrong side of public opinion. New Delhi’s posturing in the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attacks makes it impossible for the government to accede to Indian demands and risk being seen as acting under Indian pressure; public sentiment demands otherwise.

Under the circumstances, engagement and dialogue can accomplish more than demands made by India that are seen as threats by a vast majority of Pakistanis.