After witnessing the colourful pageantry and the tumultuous celebrations that took place in London to mark Queen Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee, it is difficult to imagine that India and Pakistan are still eyeball-to-eyeball in the summer heat of the subcontinent.

My wife drove me straight to Buckingham Palace from Heathrow in the evening to participate in the proceedings. The Palace grounds were full, as were the adjoining parks, so we walked to Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner where a couple of giant screens had been set up to view the pop concert. Tens of thousands of people sat around, stood or danced to the music. Many picnicked or swigged from cans of beer. The atmosphere was relaxed and laid back: there was no sign of anger or aggression as the multi-ethnic crowd milled amiably in every direction.

The next day, we went to the St Bartholomew fair where a number of brass bands played in an area of London that dates back to the early part of the 12th century and now houses Smithfield, an old food market. Appropriately, the festival celebrated food with farmers and butchers from all over the country selling everything from arrays of cheese to cooked sausages. Again, the festival was inclusive, with people of every skin tone imaginable eating and shopping side by side.

That afternoon, we watched the final carnival and flypast before Buckingham Palace on television before I finally succumbed to jet-lag. But nowhere in the entire proceedings was there any discord or unpleasantness as the entire nation celebrated the Queen's 50th year as monarch of the British Isles.

The next morning I went through the newspapers and saw there had been no breakthrough at Almaty, and both Vajpayee and Musharraf had stuck to their public postures without attempting to reach any kind of reconciliation. To be fair, the Pakistani leader did repeat his open offer to talk to the Indians 'at any time and at any place'. However, the Indians continued to insist on preconditions. If the Pakistan army cannot or will not put an end to the infiltration that is supposed to be taking place, why can't the Indians, with over half a million men in uniform in Kashmir, intercept the intruders?

One only wishes the leaders of both countries could see how ridiculous they seem to people across the world. Today's Daily Telegraph likened the animosity between the countries to a 'Punch and Judy show', referring to the popular puppet show in which the two leading characters belabour each other with sticks to the merriment of their infantile audience. The only reason the world is paying any attention to the current tension on the subcontinent is that both protagonists are now nuclear powers.

I remember how indignant I used to get years ago when the West attempted to prevent us from developing a nuclear capability, considering this an expression of the lingering imperialist and racist mindset that still held sway in western capitals. But I now realize that neither India nor Pakistan is mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with this kind of power. The current stand-off reminds me of an old joke: what do you say to a gorilla with a machine gun? You say 'sir!'

Just before leaving Karachi, I read in the newspapers that General Musharraf had dispatched a number of envoys around the world to brief leaders and opinion-makers about the Kashmir issue. Now this might come as a bit of a surprise to our president, but this is precisely what our ambassadors have been doing for the last five decades. In fact, the mileage racked up by the special envoys sent from Islamabad over the years to brief the world on Kashmir would have filled the large gap in our budget had they been kept home. I don't think we have any idea of the profound boredom the mere mention of the word 'Kashmir' inspires in the chanceries of world capitals.

I can understand Musharraf's dilemma and can even sympathize with him: having dumped the Taliban under American pressure, he is having a hard time doing the same thing to the Kashmiri mujahideen because the Indians are demanding it. Having supported both extremist groupings (or rather, different manifestations of the same phenomenon) for years, the army is now loath to ditch them. And on their part, the Indians are offering no quid pro quo, thus making it even harder for Musharraf to break away from the policy he inherited and has carried forward during his tenure.

But tough times call for tough decisions, and that's what leadership is about. Given the tension on our borders and the very real danger of war with all its imponderable consequences, somebody has to blink first. Musharraf has said in his otherwise uncompromising speech last week that Pakistan would not export extremism or militancy. If he can deliver on this pledge, we should welcome his statement of intent. There has been some talk of joint patrols to ensure that border crossings in Kashmir are halted. If this can be implemented, it could be the first step towards de-escalation. Perhaps secret talks on neutral territory with third party facilitation would help both countries pull back from the brink.

On the plane, I read a long account in The Observer about panicky scenes at New Delhi airport as thousands of foreigners scrambled to leave, heeding the warnings emanating from London and Washington. Conventional wisdom has it that India can afford the present stand-off much better than Pakistan. While this is true, it is also a fact that tourism is much more important for India than it is for Pakistan, and the threat of a nuclear holocaust is not the best inducement for foreigners planning a vacation. Both countries have a strong motivation to stand down their forces and regain some kind of normality.

But normality in the context of the subcontinent does not translate into normal, friendly relations between two neighbours. Far from it. Travel remains an ordeal; there are virtually no business relations; and propaganda fills the airwaves. The cricket teams of the two nations can't even play against each other, thanks to a bizarre edict from New Delhi. If we have come so far only to revert to the usual prickly and poisonous relationship that has obtained for years, we might as well give up on the entire region. Surely in this era of globalization and international cooperation, why can't our leaders show some sign of maturity and statesmanship?