MISTRUST has complicated relations between Pakistan and India since independence. However, when both countries became nuclear powers the resulting strategic stability promised improved relations.

The peace process between India and Pakistan from 2004 onwards provided a structure to tackle core problems, improved the atmosphere and led to incremental advances through confidence-building measures (CBMs). India, however, made no substantive movement towards resolving the core issue of Kashmir and other disputes.

Coming to November 2008's terrorist attacks on Mumbai, the attacks were immediately condemned by Pakistan, which offered a joint investigation commission. Due to the shock and anguish suffered, India's temporary freezing of the peace process was unfortunate but understandable. But a year later the situation has worsened.India's army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor has warned that intervention and limited war under a nuclear overhang is now possible in South Asia. Such statements, despite the nuclear/conventional CBMs negotiated, may render the region a nuclear flashpoint again.

Several questions arise. Is Pakistan doing enough to assuage Indian concerns after Mumbai? Does this deadlock serve India's stated objectives and if not, what are they? Is the international community playing its part in defusing the situation? Is another Mumbai possible and if so, how best to avert it? What is the way forward?

Pakistan wants friendly relations with India, resolving all disputes peacefully and to concentrate on socio-economic development. In contrast with India's reluctance to share its findings of the Samjhota Express train blast in which over 40 Pakistanis died in 2007, Pakistan initiated a comprehensive investigative/judicial process despite India's piecemeal sharing of information. An anti-terrorism court has declared 20 accused as proclaimed offenders, statements of over 120 prosecution witnesses have been recorded and hearings of seven held and indicted accused are proceeding.

India demands that Pakistan do more, as if the daily terrorist attacks killing hundreds of Pakistanis could be turned off at will. Hillary Clinton acknowledged America's creation of this situation by bringing jihadis from around the Muslim world to dislodge the USSR from Afghanistan, then deserting that country. Afghanistan's occupation by foreign forces has exacerbated extremism and terrorism.

India itself cannot eradicate its indigenous terrorist/extremist movements. Would it ban, at Pakistan's request, the powerful RSS and BJP, whose leaders stand indicted for the Babri Masjid's destruction? As long as India denies Kashmiris their Security Council-granted right to self-determination and ignores the demands of its other disaffected communities, it provides oxygen for extremism in both countries.

There has been consistent evidence that India's intelligence agencies, through Afghanistan, are fuelling dissident and terrorist movements in Balochistan and Fata. Some evidence to this effect was given to India during the Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism meetings; DG ISPR has disclosed further evidence surfacing during the ongoing Fata operations. Pakistan's foreign minister has stated that evidence is being compiled, and our prime minister has committed to sharing this evidence with India. In my view Pakistan should widely publicise this evidence at the earliest.

India's strategic planners seem to be motivated by one of two objectives the prevailing position appears to be that Pakistan should — by using the Mumbai attacks — be internationally isolated and internally weakened to accept Indian domination.

The alternative is to take at face value Indian Premier Manmohan Singh's statements that India wants good relations with a stable Pakistan and that war is no option between nuclear neighbours. In Pakistan there is belief in his sincerity. Contrary statements by other prominent Indian leaders, however, create question marks.

Is another Mumbai possible? Despite best efforts by both countries no guarantee can be given. The only certainty is that the continued bilateral deadlock encourages and strengthens extremist elements in both countries. Twice recently India has declared imminent terrorist threats from Pakistan, but when asked to share that information to enable Pakistan to check or counter these, it has refused.

If another Mumbai occurs — indigenous or otherwise — the added danger is that India may point the finger at Pakistan and use it as an excuse for adventurism. Economically resurgent and most favoured by America and the West, India now rides very high. It behaves as if Pakistan is now down and out, a miscalculation as Pakistan may be down but cannot be counted out.

It certainly needs to keep tackling terrorism robustly and work for internal political stability, which is an overarching priority. But Pakistan possesses a resilient population, the foundations of a democratic order, capable armed forces and nuclear assets, which would make any adventurism a grave mistake.

The international community perceives the dangers of the present situation but plays a hesitant, indecisive and often unhelpful role.

Prior to his election, President Barack Obama committed a special envoy for this region whose mandate included encouraging a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Indian pressure made him backtrack. Furthermore America, its western allies and Russia continue to facilitate India's massive conventional arms build-up and its strategic capabilities, most of which target Pakistan. If the western powers want stability in this region — which includes their threatened stake in Afghanistan — they must rethink their priorities and approach. Rather than issuing warnings to Pakistan they should rein in India.

For its part Pakistan should not worry about American withdrawal from Afghanistan, which would actually be consistent with our stated objections to increased troops there.

What is the way forward? If India's objective is to destabilise and weaken Pakistan, the consequences would be counterproductive for India itself.

Pakistan has repeatedly called for resumption of the peace process and its structured composite dialogue including security talks by the home secretaries and anti-terrorism cooperation under the Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism. The public in Pakistan is weary and feels it is time for India to respond.

India, the larger country, should take the initiative for restarting the peace process to provide an environment for better relations, dispute settlement and real-time counter-terrorism information sharing, which would be the best option for averting another Mumbai. India has to decide.

The writer was Pakistan's first head of delegation to the Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism with India.