As he sat there, the greying man’s presence was quite imposing. I for one was in complete awe, waiting with bated breath for the words to come out of his mouth. Surely there was something new we could learn from him as his intellect and wisdom are quite renowned. But as he started speaking I was seized by a growing pang of regret. If his wisdom had not dulled, he certainly was fixated with a peculiar interpretation of history. At a time when Pakistan is deeply embroiled in an existential struggle against the forces of terrorism and extremism, the gentleman was lecturing us on the flaws of the Two Nation Theory and the virtues of secularism. To me it was nothing but akin to preaching to the converted. Granted the Two Nation Theory is still part of our official curriculum, I have seldom seen anyone — save extreme right-wing elements — harping on it. The fact is that Pakistan is a reality today and its existence needs no ideational apology. As for secularism, I think my country has experimented enough and learned quite a few lessons already on the hazards of mingling faith with politics. But background first. One fine January day this year, around a dozen Pakistani journalists and editors reached New Delhi upon the invitation of the Indian government. There we were to have interactions with the media, intellectuals, bureaucrats and policy-makers. The episode above is the description of one such interaction with leading Indian editors and journalists. And the gentleman who was preaching all this to us was none other than renowned Indian author and editor, Mr M J Akbar. All of us in our limited capacity tried to bring Mr Akbar up to speed and correct some of his perceptions. Our emphasis was on the resumption of the peace process and my personal one was on how it can help strengthen the democratic process and civil society in my country. In his defence I must mention that he was simply summarising his new book, Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan. The initial reaction of the Indian delegation to our presentation was of scepticism, but eventually it cleared. Mr Akbar then asked me to recommend three steps that could strengthen the process. I excused myself from articulating any off the cuff ideas as on the sensitive issues of policy I seriously doubted my capacity. Other colleagues however gave very conducive suggestions. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr Akbar asked me to brood on the subject and then present my recommendations through a column. Today as Pakistani and Indian teams clash in Mohali and the premiers from both nations meet on the sidelines, I feel compelled to add my two cents to the debate. I will come up with the promised three steps at the end of this piece; before that allow me to first address some crucial aspects of the relationship and the need for some adjustments in them. Has it ever occurred to you that every time the process starts with great fanfare, one thing or another derails it? Ask yourself, why would that be? In my humble opinion, the biggest problem is of misperceptions on both sides. Granted that our side has erred repeatedly, for who can forget the Kargil episode immediately after the Lahore Declaration, the attack on the Indian parliament and last but not the least, the Mumbai carnage. But with due respect, despite the gravity of all these crises, one cannot forget that the Indian government too played right into the hands of the extremists on both sides by discontinuing the process too readily. Trust me when I say this, while there might be no evidence to prove Indian involvement in Balochistan, the common man on the street — perhaps owing to Mr Rehman Malik’s careless declarations — thinks that India is behind the unrest there. The reason behind all this is that while Pakistan is doing its best to get rid of the straitjacket of history, India has not overcome the Two Nation Theory hangover, and perhaps Mr Akbar’s views bear testimony to this. Hence it essentially considers the existence of Pakistan a negation of its own existence. A weak paranoid state, neighbour to such a colossus, is then bound to be doubtful. And then of course is the matter of Mr J N Dixit’s thesis of Indian Ocean supremacy. India’s neighbours, Pakistan being just one of them, are reasonably weary of the supposed hegemonic designs of the country. Maybe India has not admired its unique position in history and hence thus far cannot appreciate the remarkable role it can play in the global arena as the first benign international power. Having suffered centuries of slavery and subjugation, India surely is more cognizant of the evils of imperialism and hence might be hesitant to inflict a similar fate on others. It is a booming economy, a thriving democracy and a boisterous culture. Its neighbours can definitely benefit from all this and follow its lead, making it a natural leader. But for that it will have to quash the apprehensions of its neighbours by being extraordinarily magnanimous. Our side is a bit of a problem and is going to improve sluggishly but trust me, many of us are trying our level best to redefine the enemy and change the very definition of our relationship with India. If India is ready to do this, here are my humble three points that may help at least a trifle. First, there is a need to institutionalise cultural, educational, sports-related, technical and political exchanges on both sides with the help of relaxation in visa regimes, scholarships, and similar incentives. Second, the media of both sides should form a consortium, of course with the approval of the local regulators, to carry in the newspapers and the channels content produced and edited on the other side of the border. Finally, create a parliamentary-cum-judicial joint mechanism to bring the peace process back on track in case of any unfortunate incident. And this can begin with a joint declaration by the two premiers. The writer is an independent columnist and a talk show host. He can be reached at farukh@gmail.com