"India Risks Being Seen As The Aggressor"

Is Pakistan becoming de facto the next phase of the war on terror?
No. Many people in India are misreading the situation. The primary US concern is to prevent a war. Since December 13, Gen Musharraf is under pressure to rein in the terrorists. There is a continuing war against Al Qaeda where Pakistan has an important role to play. That will become difficult if India and Pakistan were to go to war.

What specifically is the US doing?
Getting Pakistan to close down the LeT and the JeM is an important step. Long-term, the US is interested in much better relations with India. The trouble is, people in India are Pakistan-obsessed and people in Pakistan are India-obsessed, and the way people see things is filtered through that. A senior Pakistani official told me that the actions of December 13 were organised by India to provoke a crisis. On the Indian side, one could be sceptical that the measures Musharraf is taking are just temporary. But India cannot start with an a priori conclusion that it's a farce.

Has Musharraf done enough?
He's laying out a gameplan which will represent what India has been seeking since 1990—a real effort to put the lid on insurgents who grew up in the Afghan war with Pakistani patronage. I think what India risks is that instead of it being the aggrieved party, Pakistan will be seen as the one. India will be seen as the aggressive one, as Pakistan is being seen as the unreasonable one now.

Is Musharraf being praised too generously in the US?
Bush has not just been praising Musharraf. He's been saying that Pakistan cannot continue to play a double game.

Does Musharraf genuinely want to curb terrorism?
He wants to move Pakistan away from this course for his own reasons. He has to re-centre the internal policies of Pakistan. He is not going to stop the rhetoric—he'd be out in 48 hours if he did.