Indias recent decision to restart the process of talks with Pakistan had not duped subcontinent watchers, or for that matter many people, to feel that the wisdom of having a peaceful and understanding relationship between the two countries had suddenly dawned on its leadership. The decision appeared to be a formal gesture devoid of any meaning, and soon the world learnt that India wanted only to discuss terrorism; it is not the composite dialogue it had offered to resume to discuss issues that spawn tragedies like terrorism, but only the symptoms. To judge whether India is sincere about resolving disputes, it must be kept in mind that, at work in persuading it to sit on the negotiation table was the mounting international pressure, in particular from the US, which was acutely anxious about the fate of its surge in Afghanistan, in the event Islamabads attention remained centred on the hostile posture New Delhi persisted in exhibiting towards it. One would, perhaps, be justified in assuming that even Washington, with its perceived strategic interests in keeping New Delhi on its right side, would not have been so keen to pressurise it against its wishes to recommence the stalled composite dialogue. It was precisely with this assessment in mind that certain political circles, including this paper, have been underlining the futility of the proposed engagement, unless India clarified in no uncertain terms that the negotiations would sincerely take up the Kashmir dispute and its offshoot of water crisis in Pakistan to resolve them. And now, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has told an Indian TV channel that, in the backdrop of the changing political conditions in Pakistan, there was no hope of meaningful results from the talks. To this his Home Minister Chadambaram has added that there could be movement in talks only if Islamabad took action against Mumbai culprits. Indeed, there is no point in accepting Indias offer to discuss the issue of terrorism; it is a ploy to divert attention from the real issues. As a bakery at Pune is hit by a bomb blast, just about two weeks before the Secretary-level talks scheduled for February 25, the Indian intelligence agencies are trying to find clues of involvement from the Pakistani side. In this context, New Delhi ought to reckon the fact that acts of terrorism by those fighting any one of the numerous insurgencies on its soil, are a routine affair. Buffeted by crises from all sides, including terrorism, Islamabad would not be promoting it elsewhere. In fact, considering the mindset of hawkish elements in India, one should not be surprised if Pune were also to be blamed on us. It bears repeating that without Kashmir and water, Pakistan should turn down the offer of talks. The idea that discussion would automatically lead to these real issues will find no takers in New Delhi.