PARITY. Now there’s a word we haven’t heard for some time. And yet it was a regular feature in Foreign Office statements not that long ago.

Its disappearance from our diplomatic lexicon is a sign of the growing realisation of our relative decline when compared with our giant neighbour. Until the 1980s, we demanded parity with India in our international dealings, but as our rival’s economy — and hence its influence — increased, we began a slide that grows steeper by the day.

India always had an edge over Pakistan where soft power was concerned. It was seen as a culturally rich and colourful destination for foreigners, while Pakistan was viewed as a barren and joyless place dominated by the military and the mullahs. Our foul treatment of women and minorities did little to improve our image.

But Pakistan still managed to retain a degree of importance due to its strategic location, first after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and then because of Al Qaeda’s 9/11 terror attack. Thus far, Pakistan still figures in calculations made in foreign capitals, if only due to the presence of terrorists on our soil.

However, nobody at our Foreign Office uses ‘parity’ any longer. When George W. Bush signed a civilian nuclear agreement with India, there were desultory noises in Islamabad demanding a similar pact. But we all knew that with our dismal record of nuclear proliferation, there was simply no way Washington was going to take us seriously.

The other day I tuned into a TV discussion between two three-member panels based in Pakistan and India respectively. Ostensibly, the context was the upcoming meeting between the prime ministers of the two countries in New York. What followed was a free-for-all in which each participant (and both anchors) yelled at the top of their voices. No attempt at a civilised debate was made, and as usual in Indo-Pak dialogue, people spoke to score points and repeat stale positions, rather than make constructive suggestions.

The young Pakistani anchor was even more aggressive than his guests, one of whom was my old friend Zafar Hilaly. To his credit, Zafar did urge the panellists to move on and think ahead. However, he then asked the Indian panel why Indians seemed determined to elect Narendra Modi, the Gujarat chief minister who presided over the dreadful massacre of Muslims a few years ago. Understandably, the Indians asked how it was his business who they elected.

And so the shouting match went on until I got bored and switched channels. Considering that all the panellists were senior, experienced people, how can we expect any progress in the negotiations that are scheduled between our two countries?

One of Nawaz Sharif’s main election promises was the normalisation of ties with India. But it takes two hands to clap. Clearly, there is little appetite for compromise and flexibility across the border. While we harp on Kashmir, Indians have latched on to the presence of militant groups on Pakistani soil like the banned militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba that is held responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attack.

The difference is that while India can afford the low-level insurgency in Kashmir indefinitely, Pakistan needs desperately to free up resources currently being diverted to defence. Nawaz Sharif was right to address the arms race that is bleeding both countries dry in his UN speech.

Our prime minister is, first and foremost, a businessman, and he understands only too well that tension and conflict are bad for the bottom line, whether it’s the national exchequer or the Ittefaq balance sheet.

Left to themselves, Nawaz Sharif and Manmohan Singh would probably get along very well. This is true for most Indians and Pakistanis. But once you draw boundaries, wear uniforms, and fly flags, the dynamics change. Suddenly, every square inch of soil becomes sacred, and history is disputed territory.

Indians just do not realise how much insecurity their country’s size and power causes in Pakistan. And many Pakistanis do not understand how our alleged use of terrorist groups to push our regional agenda causes anger in India. Sadly, much of the media in both countries adds to the paranoia instead of calming fears.

One would have thought that the impending withdrawal of US and Nato forces from Afghanistan next year would have concentrated minds in New Delhi and Islamabad. The retreat of the Red Army was seen as a great victory for jihadis. The American pullout will be similarly greeted as a triumph for the Taliban. Large parts of Afghanistan will once again become a magnet for extremists.

In this scenario, Kabul, Islamabad and New Delhi will need to coordinate their efforts to thwart terrorist groups. But given the prevailing mistrust that grips all three capitals, it is hard to see how there can be any intelligence sharing and coordination between them.

Much has been written about the need for greater movement of goods and people in the subcontinent. And yet the regional grouping, Saarc, remains moribund. China, despite its border dispute with India, is now its biggest trading partner. Direct trade between India and Pakistan amounts to only $2.3 billion; according to the World Bank, this could rise by 200pc if we were to accord MFN status to India, something India gave Pakistan years ago.

Each time there are prospects, no matter how low-key, of improved ties, all these facts and projections are trotted out by pundits. Each time, hawks on both sides contemptuously ride roughshod over the hopes of hundreds of millions. Well-meaning politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Manmohan Singh seem helpless in cutting the Gordian knot that has stifled peace.

Clearly, politicians need to stand up to their security establishments as well as the talking heads in TV studios if they want to break the deadlock. It’s peace we need, not parity.

irfan.husain@gmail.com