IT is a shame that only 13 out of 760 MPs were present to pay tributes to the watch and ward personnel who were shot dead on December 13 in the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. I was then a member of the Rajya Sabha. The house had finished the question hour and some members had called it a day. I was one of them.

But before I could leave, I heard shots and shouts to stay inside. We were roughly 500 members who took refuge in the Central Hall of Parliament. Outside the hall were the tall statues of Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. I recalled how much the two had sacrificed, not only for the country’s independence but also for India’s ethos of democracy and pluralism. The terrorists from across the border wanted to harm those values.

There was hardly any MP who did not suspect Pakistan’s hand. Subsequently, it was proved that the Lakshar-e-Toiba (LeT) was at the back of the attack. If President Asif Ali Zardari’s statements were to be interpreted the ISI was behind the LeT before he took over. Again, the attack on Mumbai where nearly 200 people killed was by the LeT and its offshoot Jammat-e-Dawa.

Then our reaction was in the shape of stationing troops on the borders for almost one year. This time, anger was deeper and wider. Yet the government showed restraint. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s only request to Zardari was to send the ISI chief. The latter agreed to do so, but could not apparently convince the army. We also know the limit to which the elected rulers in Pakistan can go. On the other hand, they have their domestic opinion to placate. But why is Islamabad reluctant to take action against terrorists who have been identified living in Pakistan. Whatever it has done so far against the terrorists, it is not on India’s request but on Washington’s word. And whatever he does will be under international pressure.

In India, except a few warmongers, there is a realization that there is no option to peace. Defence Minister A.K. Antony has publicly stated that there will be no war. Some television channels which queered the pitch in India have been ticked off. The Rajya Sabha committee has issued guidelines to indicate what should not be covered. “The repeated display in the media of human corps in case of…incidents of bomb blasts, arson etc., which causes negative psychological impact on the viewers. News channels in many foreign countries do not telecast the footage of dead bodies.”

In the media itself, there is serious discussion whether all it did was within the limits of objective journalism. I wish the same examination takes place in Pakistan. Some time later, editors of television channels and newspapers of the two countries can sit across the table and debate the matter threadbare. The responsibility on the media is the most in a democratic country.

The first story that the terrorist arrested belonged to Faridkot in Okara district of Pakistan’s Punjab was broken by a British weekly paper, The Observer. Dawn took the investigation further. Subsequently, some Pakistan channels beamed interviews with the Faridkot villagers. Why couldn’t this be done before The Observer’s story? New Delhi has identified some of the dead terrorists and published their pictures. The Pakistan media should have pursued the story.

It is also time for the politicians of the two countries to introspect their conduct. Even if they do not talk about war, their speeches and the body language is far from friendly. They run with the hare and hunt with the hound. Why are they stoking fires of hatred when people on both sides are surcharged? Whether there is a campaign in Pakistan or nor to watch Indian movies is yet to be known. But the halls which are showing Indian films are practically empty. On this side, Minister of Sports and Youth Affairs says that the cricket series with Pakistan cannot take place after what happened in Mumbai. Thus the recrimination between the two countries goes on.

France and Germany fought for hundreds of years. Today they are the best of friends. Qaide-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah gave me this example when I asked him before partition that Hindus and Muslims would jump at each other’s throat once the British left. He said we would be the best of friends.

I have no doubt that one day this would come about. The assassinated Benazir Bhutto told me at London a few months before returning to Pakistan that she would have “a borderless subcontinent.” President Zardari has tried to go towards the same direction, but has been hit on his knuckles. Manmohan Singh has said many a time that the destiny has thrown India and Pakistan together and they cannot but be good neighbours.

I admire the courage and commitment of people, however small in number, lighting candles at Karachi or taking out a procession at Lahore in memory of those who died in the Mumbai attack. This is the time when India needs understanding. This is also the occasion when faith in good relations between India and Pakistan is tested.

Pakistan should understand India’s anger. Those who attacked Mumbai might be the Al-Qaida and the Taliban who are playing havoc in Pakistan as well. But these are the organizations which are helping, training and arming them. Why have such extremists remained beyond the pale of law? Even when some of them were “detained” after the attack on India’s Parliament, they were practically free to preach and spread poison. India suspects that those arrested after the Mumbai carnage would have the front door of their house shut while the back door is open.

Nobody has accused the Pakistan government for the attack on Mumbai. But it has not been able to insulate its territory which the terrorists continue to use as the launching pad as well as their refuge. All know that the army in Pakistan has a decisive role and that the ISI is a state within state.

Unfortunately, some of the speeches in the Rajya Sabha were exactly on the lines of statements made in the US Congress after 9/11. President Bush attacked Iraq and Afghanistan and played havoc to the liberal values and traditions of America. It has taken all these years for the nation to assert itself through the election of Senator Barrack Obama to the office of President. Civil societies in both the countries should take note of it. As K. Chopin said in his book, The Awakening, “The bird that would soar above the level of plain of tradition and prejudice must have strong wings.”