MOHAMMAD Ali Jinnah did not want to mix state matters and religion. The forces which are today trying to assert themselves are going against the undertaking he gave. The killing of Punjab governor Salman Taseer indicates not only religious extremism but also disdain for Jinnah's views.

No doubt, liberal Taseer characterised the law of blasphemy as a 'black law'. But this was his personal opinion which he never forced on anyone. Fundamentalists do not tolerate any other viewpoint. But Pakistan is a democratic polity which allows dissent.

It is strange that the killing has only been criticised by the PPP. Others are either quiet or appear to go over the exercise of criticism for show. And the role of some ulemas is tragic because they are supporting what the assassin has done.

The killing brings to mind the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi. In her case too, security guards killed her with guns meant to protect her. It was their way of protesting the army's entry in the Sikhs' Golden Temple. The community forgave the government after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi sought apologies in parliament and at the Golden Temple.

Pakistan's case is different because extremism is on the rise. The more fundamentalists are appeased, the more they are strengthened. The Taliban on the one side and the bigoted among the people on the other can be harmful to the nation's development and progress.

New Delhi can be of some help in the situation by starting a dialogue with Islamabad. People in Pakistan may see in the talks a way out of the impasse they face on so many fronts.

New Delhi should not forget that Pakistan is a nuclear power. True, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to separate the terrorism issue from the dialogue at Sharm El Sheikh. But Indian opinion was so horrified over the 26/11 attack that it was impossible to move forward without the assurance that terrorists' camps in Pakistan have been dismantled.

Pakistan can say, as its spokesman has pointed out, that India is obsessed with the 26/11 attack even after two years. But this argument does not sell in the country which has suffered at the hands of terrorists. Islamabad will have to do something whereby the Indians are assured that no attack would take place from across the border. Islamabad has said that there are no terrorists' camps on its soil. Why doesn't it invite India to see for itself that the terrorists' camps have been dismantled?

No doubt, Pakistan is itself a prey to terrorism and hardly a week goes by when bomb blasts do not take place even in secure places like police headquarters. And it does not help if Islamabad is chided that it gave birth to the jihadis now beyond its control.

Both are facts: India's fear of a terrorist attack and Pakistan's helplessness to rein in the fundamentalists. Yet it is also a fact that the two countries cannot seek a solution to the problem they face unless they begin to talk. Terrorism itself may find the joint approach of the two countries a deterrent.

New Delhi and Islamabad blame each other till the cows come home. But there is no right or wrong when the two sides are not even willing to sit across the table. The real reason is that they live in the past. How long will they carry the baggage of history assuming Kashmir is the core problem? Nobody can justify what has been happening there. But it is not a black or white situation. azadi

I met two young men from Kashmir a few days ago. One was a Muslim who argued that if India did not give to Kashmir, they would come to believe in the two-nation theory. He described how his house was destroyed and his family members maltreated at the hands of the security forces.

The other was a Kashmiri Pandit who had sought shelter in Mumbai. He was equally bitter because his family had been forcibly ousted from his house at Srinagar and some members got injured in the process. He blamed writers like me who 'sympathised' with those who were out to break up India.

In a way, both reminded me of India and Pakistan nourishing the wounds of partition and polarisation. The two youth were as intractable as the two countries. The Muslim Kashmiri was so angry that he did not mind if the valley alone was made independent. The Kashmiri Pandit wanted to go back to Srinagar but could not brook the idea of a status outside India.

There are too many hands involved in the mix of Kashmir. Abdul Ghani Bhat of Hurriyat has said that the Mirwaiz's father and Abdul Ghani Lone were killed by terrorists, not by the security forces or any other government agency. The terrorists are playing havoc in both countries. They have to be eliminated. There is no other option. They may be operating in one country or an area today but they will spread to engulf the entire region tomorrow.

From whichever point you may start, you end up with the same option: India and Pakistan must resume talks. And once they begin they should not break off until they find a solution. Both countries may have to give up their present firm positions. But governments and political parties should not mind losing face.

The alternative is perpetual confrontation which people in the region do not relish. They want to live in peace so that they can improve their standard of living and meet people across the border — the people with whom they have shared their sorrows and happiness for hundreds of years.

The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi.