Will the renewal of the dialogue, formal or informal, produce a positive change in Pakistan’s approach to violent extremism against India? Not necessarily. And certainly not in the short term. Zardari might be the president of Pakistan; he was neither responsible for the Mumbai attacks nor does he have the power to offer redress to India. Pakistan’s real power centre, the army, has turned hostile towards the peace process with India. By launching a new campaign against the Taliban in Swat and preparing for another in Waziristan, the Pakistan army is winning powerful friends in Washington and gaining empathy around the world. Put simply, the Pakistan army, the main supporter of anti-India terror groups, has emerged a winner at home and abroad since Mumbai.

Where does that leave India? For one, India must look beyond the simplistic binary approach to Pakistan — talks or no talks. Instead, New Delhi must develop a long-term strategy that aims to alter Pakistan’s internal dynamics in India’s favour. Extending strong support to Pakistan’s weak civilian leaders is one important part of that strategy. New Delhi must also script a strong play in Washington to prevent the Pakistan army from leveraging its current campaign against the Taliban to protect its extremist assets against India. To mount and sustain real pressure on the Pakistan army, India must look and sound reasonable, articulate a positive vision for the subcontinent, and underline the imperative for a collective regional and international struggle against terrorism. That exactly is what Dr Singh has done in Yekaterinburg. Translating this ambitious strategy into effective action is the real challenge confronting India; it is not whether or when we should talk to Pakistan.