Even after one year, the world is still struggling to wriggle out of the mess the Mumbai attacks created in South Asia, bringing the nuclear rivals to the brink of disaster. The 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai negated all confidence building measures between Pakistan and India who had been, for years, inching towards peace and a future offering both the countries an opportunity to grow by exploring further trade avenues.

Fresh diplomatic tensions may surface as Islamabad is likely to fall back on its repeated policy of calling for talks. Global powers are also finding it hard to convince India for talks with Pakistan, providing Islamabad a breathing space to tackle insurgency along its western borders.

The US offered China a vital role to normalise relations between Pakistan and India. This is what emerges from a remark made by President Barack Obama and the joint statement issued by the US and Chinese governments in Beijing on November 17. "They (US and China) support the efforts for the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan," the joint statement said.

This is a rare occasion when a US president has acknowledged that Beijing has a role to play in the India-Pakistan relations. India was swift to say no to the third-party mediation. Expectedly, Indian External Affairs Ministry said a third country's role cannot be envisaged nor is it necessary.

The 2008 Mumbai attacks had rung alarm bells across the world, especially after Pakistani jet fighters roared over the skies in Lahore and Islamabad. The attacks in Mumbai pushed the two nuclear rivals to a point that could have spelt disaster not only for the region but for the whole world.

Realising the fact that any armed, or may be a nuclear, conflict in the region would fling the whole globe into chaos, especially when the war on terror was being actively fought along the Pak-Afghan border, the United States, Russia, China and the United Nations stepped forward to cool the tempers down.

On January 7, 2009, after more than a month of denying the nationality of the attackers, the then Information Minister Sherry Rehman accepted Ajmal Kasab's nationality as Pakistani. On February 12, 2009, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, in a televised news briefing, confirmed that parts of the attack had been planned in Pakistan and that six people, including the alleged mastermind, were being held in connection with the attacks.

Pakistan was caught between two hostile fronts -- one at the western borders fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban militants and the second at the eastern border with India.

The then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee declared that India might indulge in military strikes against terror camps in Pakistan to protect its territorial integrity. There were also after-effects on the United States' relationships with both countries, the US-led NATO war in Afghanistan and on the global war on terror. The Indian External Affairs Minister Mr Krishna sounded positive when he said Tuesday last that he was looking forward to a meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmmod Qureshi on the sidelines of the CHOGM meeting in Trinidad. Hopefully, they will come up with some kind of a breakthrough to get the composite dialogue between the two countries going.

During his visit to Srinagar on October 26, the recalcitrant Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh repeated that talks would not make headway unless Pakistan took effective action against terrorism. India is continuously ignoring the fact that Pakistan security forces are locked in a deadly fight with terrorists along its western borders. The cost Pakistan is paying for this fight outweighs the losses that the alliance of so many countries is incurring in Afghanistan.

The question now is whether the US-led international community can encourage India to abandon its no-talks posture and get it to the negotiating table. US President Barack Obama may convince or even push Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, when the latter visits the White House on November 24, to resume dialogue with Pakistan as there seems to be no second option to resolve their differences.

The News on Sunday: It was during your visit to India last year that the horrendous acts of terror took place in Mumbai, the financial hub of our neighboring state. How do you look back at those events and what do you think has their impact been on the Indo-Pakistan relations?

Shah Mahmood Qureshi: Pakistan strongly condemned the terrorist attacks. We even proposed to India that a Joint Commission be set up to work together on the investigations. Besides, we offered a high level visit to India. New Delhi did not respond positively.

Later, we carried out extensive investigations into the incident. Two Lashkar-e-Taiba (defunct) training centres and four hideouts of the terrorists were hunted down. Later, the boat on which the terrorists sailed from Pakistan was taken in possession. Similarly, 11 bank accounts used by the terrorists have been traced and action taken in accordance with our procedures.

Indian government shared some material on Mumbai attacks with us on January 5, 2009, whereas the attack took place more than a month ago, on November 26, 2008. The material was carefully examined.

Since the information provided by India was inadequate and incomplete, our investigating agencies sought further clarifications. The additional information required by our authorities needs to be authentic which could stand the scrutiny of law.

In a significant and parallel development, the trial of the seven accused in the Mumbai case continues. Statements of more than 100 prosecution witnesses have been recorded. On October 10, the Anti Terror Court judge framed charges against the 7 accused including Hammad Amin Sadiq, Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi and others. Hearings on the matter have been held whereas non bailable warrants have been issued against Ajmal Kasab and Fahim Ansari, who are in custody in India.

In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, India placed a pause on the composite dialogue. Pakistan believes that resumption of dialogue is in the best interest of the region. It is important that dialogue should be put back on the track. Cooperative engagement between the two countries is paramount to fighting against terrorism.

TNS: Pakistan and India have been unable to reach a major breakthrough on Kashmir, Siachen or any other issue on the eight-point Composite Dialogue agenda, despite long peace process launched earlier in 2004. Earlier, the neighboring nuclear states held many rounds of parleys. What, in your view, are the main reasons for these repeated but unsuccessful negotiations?

SMQ: Pakistan wishes to have friendly, cooperative and good neighbourly relations with India. We would like to continue to work with the India to resolve all outstanding issues between our two countries, peacefully and in a just manner. Pakistan is committed to a just and peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

The CBMs agreed upon between the two countries on Kashmir have paid dividends. The cross-LOC trade is continuing. So is the case with the bus serves between the two sides of Kashmir. In our view, the resolution of Siachen and Sir Creek would be a major CBM in the relations between Pakistan and India. The resolution of these disputes will go a long way in ushering in an era of peace and stability in South Asia.

TNS: To revive the peace process, which came to a halt after the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan has arrested many people blamed for the horrendous attacks but India is still not willing to restart negotiations. Will Pakistan continue with what many believe is its 'appeasement policy' towards India? Isn't it time to tell India that Pakistan has done enough and now it's their turn to come forward and reciprocate?

SMQ: Pakistan is not following a policy of appeasement with India. In our view, it is important that both the countries follow the path of dialogue to address each other's concerns.

Both Pakistan and India need to patiently interact with each other. Both are important countries of South Asia. Both are neighbours. This reality requires a mature and pragmatic approach to resolve our issues.

TNS: What does the future hold for the Indo-Pakistan peace process? Will both sides recommence their efforts to resolve their bilateral issues?

SMQ: Pakistan believes that sustained dialogue is necessary to allay each other's concerns. Breakdown of dialogue only works to the advantage of those who do not want to see peace in the region. We are convinced that continuation of composite dialogue is in the larger interest of the people of Pakistan and India. It is our hope that India will also realise this.

TNS: It was your predecessor Khurshid Kasuri who claimed that Pakistan and India once came very close to settling the Kashmir dispute. It was believed to be the result of a so-called 'secret diplomacy'. Presently, is back-channel diplomacy going on to put the peace process back on track and also to help resolve the Kashmir issue and other bilateral disputes?

SMQ: Back channel issues need not be discussed through media. As regards the progress made earlier, the question should be put to my predecessor.

TNS: Water sharing is another major dispute between Pakistan and India and now we hear Islamabad will seek international arbitration to resolve issues on Kishenganga hydroelectric project. Is it true? Also, could you tell us how deeply will the water disputes impact the Indo-Pakistan ties in years to come?

SMQ: The water dispute between Pakistan and India is a very important one. Wullar barrage is one of the subjects discussed with India under the composite dialogue process. The fourth round of the Secretary-level talks on Wullar barrage in New Delhi in August 2007 did not translate in a forward movement.

For the commissioning of the Baglihar project, India filled up its reservoir in August 2008 and did not abide by the specific provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty. We raised the issue at various levels with the Indian side, also with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Pakistan has also raised objections on the diversion of flow and design of the Kishenganga project. The issue has been discussed with the Indian side on various occasions. The pending issues related to Kishenganga are, therefore, to be resolved in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty.

TNS: What will be your message to India on the first anniversary of Mumbai attacks?

SMQ: Pakistan offers commiseration and our sincere condolences to those affected by the dastardly act of terrorism. Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism. Both the neighbouring countries must enhance their cooperation in combating the menace. We believe that conflict, confrontation and tension are exactly what the terrorists want. In this regard, I welcome the recent remarks made by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in which he expressed his readiness to resume talks with Pakistan. This is a welcome reiteration of the understanding reached at Sharm-El Sheikh.

We have always said that Pakistan and India should not allow terrorists and militants to define and drive our agenda on issues of peace, security and stability in South Asia.

If the intention behind the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai was to kill the peace process between India and Pakistan, then the terrorists who planned and perpetrated the outrage have achieved their objective. The two countries had made a lot of progress, or so we are told by Dr Manmohan Singh, Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf and Khurshid Kasuri, to reach a mutually acceptable deal on the most contentious of all issues between them Jammu and Kashmir. While the understanding on J&K reached in the 'back-channel' hasn't still been repudiated by either side, it will, for all practical purposes, remain buried in some highly classified file in some inaccessible room in New Delhi and Islamabad (more likely, Rawalpindi), for the foreseeable future.

So long as the public sentiment in India doesn't get over the deep hurt and sense of violation caused by the Mumbai terror strikes, and there isn't a satisfactory closure on the fate of the plotters of this dastardly attack, bringing the peace process back on the rails will take some doing. Even if the Indian leadership decides to bite the bullet and resume the stalled dialogue, chances are that there will be a lot of talking at each other rather than talking to each other. Meaningful action against groups and individuals responsible for Mumbai is perhaps now an inescapable sine qua non for a meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan.

If Kargil was India's first televised war, Mumbai was India's first televised terror strike. The 60-hour long, live and saturation coverage of an act of mass murder in which Indians from every strata of society were mercilessly butchered, unleashed the sort of public fury among the middle and upper classes that is quite unprecedented in India. On the firing line was the political class in India and, of course, Pakistan, from where the attackers came. The government was swift to control the political damage. Heads rolled and a tough line was taken on Pakistan, which was, and still is, in keeping with the public mood.

The denials, obfuscation, flip-flops (for instance, over the visit of ISI chief) by Pakistan hasn't helped matters. The counter-propaganda in the Pakistani media -- remember the 'lawyer' who claimed that Ajmal Kasab was 'kidnapped' in Nepal by the Indian intelligence agencies and the rather silly, and utterly malicious, 'al faida' type of analysis by 'embedded' journalists with a reputation of asking questions based on hand-outs from the infamous 'agencies' -- only hardened the Indian position. In the end, the Mumbai attacks not only killed people, it also killed the desire for good and friendly relations with Pakistan in many an Indian heart.

The suspicion and lack of faith and trust in Pakistan among Indians deepened after the non-serious prosecution and subsequent acquittal of Jamaatud Dawa chief, Hafiz Saeed, and the absence of any genuine crackdown on the Lashkar-e-Taiba. To make matters worse, the recent arrest in the US of two men of Pakistani origin (Tahawwur Rana and David Headley aka Daood Gilani) who were working for the LeT and were planning to launch terror attacks in India -- the targets include the National Defence College in Delhi and Doon School in Dehradun -- has convinced Indians that the ban imposed on LeT is an eyewash.

This distrust, in many ways, lies at the heart of the problem. It is natural for Pakistanis, who are themselves reeling under devastating terror attacks on practically a daily basis, to wonder why the Indians are making such a big deal about Mumbai. But the way the Indians see it, what the Pakistanis are facing is the result of their proxies -- Taliban and their affiliates like the splinter groups of Jaish-e-Muhammad, Harkatul Mujahideen etc -- going out of control; on the other hand, the terrorism in India is the handiwork of groups like the LeT which still operate pretty much like an auxiliary force of the Pakistani intelligence agencies.

Therefore, for anyone to imagine that the people of Mumbai and India have put 26/11 behind them and that a watered-down version of Indo-Pak dialogue can resume sometime soon would be a mistake. It isn't always possible to pull off an Agra after a Kargil. No one knows this better than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, especially after the flak he faced from all directions over Sharm-el-Sheikh. His effort to try and resurrect the peace process ended up leaving him somewhat isolated on this issue within his own party.

Making the resumption of some sort of a dialogue with Pakistan politically palatable is only part of the problem that Dr Singh faces. The other part of the problem is that the Indian national security establishment is divided between the realists and the idealists over the utility of talking to Pakistan. The latter are of the view that there is no option but to use the dialogue process to resolve differences and improve relations with Pakistan. They believe that having faced the blowback of Jihadist terror, the Pakistani establishment has changed tack and is left with no choice but to wind up the jihad factory. They have also been encouraged by some of the efforts made by Pakistan to bring to book the perpetrators of 26/11.

The idealists accept that it is trifle unrealistic to expect Pakistan to carry out a purge of all the jihadists at the same time. With the Pakistani security forces stretched to the limit, opening another front in Punjab or other parts of the country is not quite feasible at this point in time and could easily destabilise even those parts of Pakistan that are relatively stable. In any case, they are of the view that India should try and strengthen the hands of the civilian politicians and reciprocate the desire for good relations that has been expressed from time to time by the top political leadership, both in government and opposition.

The realists, however, point out that these arguments are alibis that hold no value. They say that no purpose will be served by talking to the civilian leadership because it is not a credible interlocutor and is too weak to deliver on anything at all. The credibility of the government has also been severely compromised by what is perceived in India to be an 'establishment-driven' campaign to ensure that the political leadership cannot take any initiative on critical foreign policy issues without the approval of the military. Serious doubts are cast by the realists over the intentions of the Pakistan army to wind up the jihadist infrastructure that targets India. They argue that as long as the Pakistan army continues to treat as its biggest enemy, as also the biggest threat to Pakistan's security, it will sabotage any peace initiative by a civilian dispensation in Pakistan.

Being an idealist, Dr Singh is probably inclined to another attempt at peace with Pakistan. Whether he will succeed is altogether another question. With the wounds of 26/11 being opened by the media coverage of the first anniversary of these attacks, any initiative at this point in time (say, in Trindad and Tobago) would probably be a case of terrible political timing. But even if the Gordian knot preventing a resumption of the dialogue process is cut, peace between India and Pakistan will remain precarious, hostage to terrorists who will probably try everything to destroy any chance of peace between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. And given the public mood, the next spectacular terror strike could well unleash an Armageddon in the subcontinent.

The writer is a New Delhi based journalist, specialising on South Asian affairs. He is currently also a consultant for the Pakistan Project of the IDSA, New Delhi

Progress on Pakistan's investigations into the Mumbai terrorist attacks and the cases filed against the accused is not enough to satisfy the Indian government.

The situation so far is that terrorism cases have been filed against the attackers and their alleged supporters and handlers on both sides of the border. But, unfortunately, there is an inordinate delay in the completion of the legal processes mainly due to the "non-cooperation" between the Pakistani and the Indian authorities.

India claims to have handed over several dossiers to Pakistan that pinpointed the people involved in the attacks, the locations from where they operated and even the logistic details. On the other hand, Pakistan has always held the evidence provided by India as insufficient and shoddy enough to benefit the accused. For example, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik thinks the statement of Ajmal Kasab that Jamatud-Dawa (JuD) Ameer Hafiz Saeed was directly involved in the whole planning and training of the attackers is not enough to prove the latter guilty. He said in a press conference, "If I arrest him and take him to my court, the court is going to ask me, 'Mr prosecutor, what is the evidence? The persons giving the statement are sitting in India. Have you cross-examined Kasab?'"

Referring to the mention of some pink foam used as an explosive by the attackers, Malik said the court would simply ask about its formulation to decide its place or origin or from where it was obtained.

In the absence of an extradition treaty between the two countries, it is impossible to hand over any of the accused to the other country for cross-examination, says Jawad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court (ASC), talking to TNS.

Hasan says neither would any of the two countries give each other's investigators access to the accused in their custody.

He says that under the international criminal law, the International Criminal Court (ICC) can take up cases related to genocide and human rights violations, provided the all countries party to it agree on this.

Another possible forum for Mumbai attacks case, he says, can be a tribunal formed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

According to Hasan, there is little hope that the "unfriendly" India and Pakistan can openly share sensitive information in the presence of laws like the Official Secrets Act 1923 and other internal security mechanisms. "If the issue is not taken up by a neutral forum, the case would remain a non-starter."

No doubt there has always been a lack of trust between the two countries regarding the sharing of information related to Mumbai attacks. This, no doubt, is the biggest hurdle in the swift and fair trial of the accused. From the very start, the two countries were interested more in hiding information than sharing it with each other. It was after denying for about a month and a half the Mumbai attackers had any links with Pakistani soil that the government confirmed -- in January this year -- that Ajmal Kasab belonged to Pakistan but had no support of the state. It also confirmed that the attacks were partially planned inside Pakistan and some handlers were present in the country at the time of the attacks.

In subsequent developments, the Pakistan government launched a crackdown against Jamatud-Dawa (JuD) and put its chief Hafiz Saeed under house arrest. The JuD disassociated itself from Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), known as its militant wing, but the government took control of its facilities and appointed administrators there.

Seven more suspects including LeT leader Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi, Zarar Shah, Abu al-Qama, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jamil Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younas Anjum were booked under the Anti-Terrorism Act and are being tried in the court.

The trial against Lakhvi and others faced a major setback as the anti-terrorism court judge hearing it in-camera at Adiala Jail asked the court to relieve him from this duty. A new judge has been appointed to hear the case which is being adjourned again and again.

A. K. Dogar, counsel of Hafiz Saeed, tells TNS that the charges levelled against his client are as vague as one can think of. The full bench of the Lahore High Court had ruled that there was no justification in restricting free movement of his client. "He enjoys all the fundamental rights under the Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan."

Dogar says the court also ruled that it was not duty-bound to obey the orders of the UN in the absence of any solid evidence to the fact. The same was the fate of the red warrant issued by Interpol, he says, adding the two FIRs filed against Hafiz Saeed for his alleged involvement in anti-state activities were quashed by the court.

"JuD is not a banned organisation. Interpol has no right to issue a red warrant against its chief," Dogar maintains.

He says he has no updates on the trial going on in Adiala Jail as the documents available with the prosecutors have not been shared with him.

Just like the lack of cooperation between India and Pakistan, there also exists some between the Punjab government and the federal government when it comes to sharing of this information. The fact came to the public when Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah told media that the federal government had not shared the evidence available with it.

Ahmar Bilal Sufi, international law expert, tells TNS that the crime in question is of trans-national nature. The conspiracy was hatched in one country and the crime was committed in another. Similarly, the facilitators were present in different countries like the US and Italy, he adds. Until and unless all these countries collaborate and examine and verify all the evidences there cannot be a breakthrough.

Sufi says the trial cannot proceed in the right direction till the law enforcement authorities start cooperating with each other and give each other access to the accused and witnesses. "Proving a conspiracy is much more difficult than proving the actual crime," he says, adding that despite holding the main accused Ajmal Kasab for a year, India has failed to convict him.

Sufi foresees that the trial, if conducted the way it is being done, may take many years to complete and result in lighter sentence or acquittal of some of the accused. "In that case, India would increase pressure on Pakistan and say it was not serious in conducting the trial. If this happens this would mainly be due to legal lacunae and nothing else. Therefore, I would suggest that Indo-Pak dialogue should not be linked to this trial and the investigators from both the countries be allowed an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses."

On November 26, 2008, a 60-hour long battle began in Mumbai between the attackers and the defenders of India's financial capital. Another war began a little later. Sadly, in this case, the fine line between the attackers and the defenders (at least not after the first few hours) was not as clearly marked as in the previous case. Though the Indian media can be held responsible for firing the first shot, what the Pakistani media did afterwards more than made up for the initial 'loss' sustained.

It was well after children's bed time that our news channels informed us that there were reports of shootings at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) and, a while later, a well-known café. Suddenly, it all turned into a nightmare when the channels decided to cut to live newsroom transmissions and we found out that the Taj and Oberoi were also under attack. Mumbai was held hostage and so were we as we witnessed the tragedy on our television screens, viewing live scenes of how the people hit the ground when the attackers hijacked a jeep and fired at policemen. And so it began.

The Pakistani news channels are surely to be accredited with being sensitive to the Mumbai attacks, at least for the first hour or so. Then the Indian media said the magic word and the media on this side of the border responded thereof.

It was not just the Pakistani people or the media who felt wronged when the Indian TV channels decided to point their fingers in our direction; many in India also thought it was unfair, to say the least. But the shot had been fired and the repercussions were felt soon after.

At first the Pakistani media was surprised and shocked and did not know what to say. And then it reacted. A news show host turned the pointed fingers back towards India and the 'conspiracy egg' finally hatched. Both the countries' media went back and forth trying to prove themselves right and the other wrong.

One of the most glaring acts of prejudice by India was perhaps when one of the TV channels decided to talk to an attacker live (a decision that itself attracted a fair share of criticism by many) and asked him, "from Pakistani Hyderabad?" after he claimed to be from "Hyderabad". But sadly, the Pakistani media claimed it as a victory when the attacker exclaimed, "Nahin pyarey. Hyderabad, Deccan!"

Then emerged a CCTV image of two attackers at CST. The Indians debated the origins of the attackers while the Pakistanis tried to blow up the part of the photograph that showed that the attacker (now identified as Kasab) was wearing a 'kara' or 'rakhi', which only the Hindus or Sikhs are supposed to wear. For every blow received there was a retaliatory strike.

The coverage of the 60-hour siege went on relentlessly from both sides. Yet self-criticism of the bad judgments made during that period was sadly one-sided. People in India voiced their concerns about how the media, particularly the TV channels, were covering the attack. Even though it was concerned majorly with issues of ethics (like disappointment at the showing of bodies and blood) as well as responsibility that the media is supposed to exercise when dealing with situations that are sensitive (like live coverage of the commandos' movements and could endanger the position of the hostages) as well as airing unsubstantiated news and reports. Take, for example, the confusion that ensued the realisation that Mumbai was under attack with the ever-changing estimate about how many gunmen were there; statement by a reporter who said she saw three men coming out with their hands on their heads from GT Hospital near CST; the story about how there were hints of negotiations with the terrorists regarding the safe release of the hostages in Oberoi or the story of a second shootout at CST on November 28, 2008.

The Indian media also faulted when they decided to give more importance to the situations at the Taj and Oberoi and did not focus on the victims who lost their lives at CST. Barkha Dutt from New Delhi Television (NDTV) also acknowledged this (even though she was the least popular TV anchor during the coverage and she also came under fire when NDTV threatened legal action against a Canadian blogger who had criticised Ms Dutt) lack of balance on the part of the Indian media, though in all fairness, as she said, the Taj and Oberoi sieges were more 'newsworthy' than CST because the situations at the two hotels were still evolving every hour or so. Still, a better attempt at balancing the significance given to 'ordinary people' versus the 'elite' could have been made. This excuse, however, fails when it comes to why the Indian media did not make as big a deal about 11 ordinary policemen who lost their lives as opposed to Karkare and NSG officers.

India's social media also came of age in the form of Tweets and other social media updates that emanated from Mumbai during those hours. They provided unfiltered news in a more direct way. However, the veracity of the news that we get from the social media is not certain. Immediacy is making headlines at the cost of accuracy.

The Pakistani media, on the other hand, was not a saint either. As mentioned before, the media leapt into the game prepared to fight dirty in order to emerge unscathed, if only in the eyes of its own people. It rejected outrightly the accusation of Pakistan's involvement in the Mumbai attacks when it should have said that India should not make baseless accusations. Instead what it did was to invite ex-ISI chiefs and 'experts' who 'verified' that Pakistan was not involved and also implied that India was itself responsible for the attack in order to have an excuse to declare war. That is where Pakistani media's dismal performance started. It continued with the generals forecasting what the imminent Indo-Pak war was going to be like, how reliable our nuclear capability was, what our response time would be and how far and how strategically can we target sensitive locations in India.

The newspapers were not to be left behind and a couple also sent their teams to Faridkot from where they came back disputing India's accusation that Ajmal Kasab was a Pakistani national. They, however, were made to bite their tongues a day or two later when a foreign news channel disproved them. Not only did the media giants refuse to acknowledge their mistake, they started vying to prove how they were the first ones to get to the story and prove that Ajmal Kasab was indeed a citizen of Pakistan.

It was a crazy time but the madness that proceeded could have been avoided. The media of both countries should have tried not to let jingoism seep into journalism. The war hysteria, the accusations -- which are still being exchanged -- and the lack of trust displayed by the media has derailed the peace process which was put on track over a number of years. As Khaled Ahmed points out, "The media has ruined all prospects of peace between the two countries." The battle goes on.