India's defense minister dismissed Pakistan's efforts to crack down on militants in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, saying Friday that dozens of terrorist groups remain active in the country.
"I do not think there is any noticeable change in the attitude of Pakistan," A.K. Antony told reporters. "Statements are not important. Actions are important. They have to prove by their action."
And as Pakistan does not do what India considers sufficient to react to the jihadi issue, events--or just the perception of events--continue to provide each side with cause to worry about the other:
Tensions have become exceedingly fragile between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals since the attacks. Both sides have made comments that alternately hint at — then back away from — the possibility of conflict.
India has not ruled out the use of force in its response to the attacks. Pakistan's civilian leaders have said they do not want war, but will retaliate if attacked.
Antony insisted that India had not ordered any out-of-the-ordinary movements of soldiers since the attacks.
Pakistani officials said last week that India had moved troops toward their shared border, following Islamabad's own redeployment of forces toward the frontier. Pakistan also said New Delhi had activated forward air bases.
Indian officials have denied those claims.
Leaders under constant stress may do something to end that stress even if that something is war.
Pakistan needs to take actions that India will take as sufficient to stay the threat of Indian military retaliation against Islamist terrorists inside Pakistan.
UPDATE: Oh, and I meant to add that Pakistan needs to take action to satisfy India and defuse the confrontation before Pakistani leaders press for a preemptive strike in the belief that they are running out of time in the face of a real or perceived Indian build up.
By providing accurate information on deployments to each side we can buy time, but we cannot completely stop the stress that could lead to rash actions.
