Who attacked Mumbai's hotels is still a guess work. Divergent views are being doled out. Western media jumped to see imprints of Al-Qaeda's modus operandi. Indian newspapers started hitting at their favourite punching bag; the Islamists. Some of them blamed the less known, Deccan Mujahedeen. The Indian PM as usual saw foreign hand probably even before the first assailant was shot down. Media harped on invalidated information that assailants were looking for Brits and American guests in the hotel. It proved wrong as one only out of 174 killed was a British. Undeterred Indian high ups dished out yet another preposterous statement that assailants were of Pakistan origin British citizens. In this entire muddle the truth got lost. Was it intentional? Seems that in this sundering world, the question 'who did it' is not important; but whom to incriminate is more important. All above knee-jerk reactions are reflective of pre-determined minds armed with set agendas. India these days very much likes to see itself a target of Islamists, even Al-Qaeda, seeking to position itself with the West. Making profit out of the tragedy might serve long-term interests, though temporarily, but it kills the truth and betrays the killed. Would India let an independent enquiry committee look deep into the incident? It is anybody's guess. If someone is serious to ascertain what really happened in Mumbai on that fateful day ought to keep in mind that over two dozen insurgencies of varying intensities are simmering in India. India has created a security cauldron for itself. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) report India Assessment 2007 2,765 people died in terrorism related violence in India during 2006 and 41 percent of the total fatalities were in the Indian held Kashmir. But the report says: "27 percent resulted from Left Wing Extremism (Maoism/Naxaiisrn) across parts of 14 states, prominently including Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Karnataka. 23 percent of the total fatalities in 2006 occurred in the multiple insurgencies of India's Northeast." There is an aggrieved and agitated galore. According to SATP: "At least 231 of the country's 608 districts are currently afflicted, at differing intensities, by various insurgent and terrorist movements." Who is topping the chart among them should not be a mystery for the security agencies of India. Attackers' unveiled calm faces, ostensible familiarity with the targets and preparedness to fight a pitched battle confirm their nativeness. Their determination to die smilingly belies any allegation of them being anybody's front men. They had some strong reason, at least in their minds, to kill and get killed. Investigators can work on these lines to ferret out the truth, provided they are permitted to do so. Internally, the minorities in India, like Muslims and Sikhs, have grave gripes against the Hindu dominated Indian government. The bitterness of carnage and mayhem of Muslims, Sikhs and Christians, at the hands of Hindu hoodlums, at the behest of some elements in the government, would keep simmering for long times to come. Occasional eruptions and flames are natural. So a better look at one's own backyard can give answer for the swelling graveyards. The strange estrangement processes in the Indian society were aptly portrayed by New Yorker (November 19, 1984) after the gruesome massacre of Sikhs in New Delhi: "Political, social, and religious tinder is ever present in Indian society, and it takes but a spark to ignite it." Externally, India's growing hostility towards Muslims outside its borders cannot go unanswered. Its dubious role in Afghanistan has all the reasons to earn sharp reaction. It wants to kill two birds with one stone - shoot at the Muslims from over the NATO shoulder and to create security problems for Pakistan. Policies have a price to pay. Terrorism is nothing but reaction to policies. But India is rapidly coming to point. The 'external hand' theory floated by the Indian PM, which looked like a knee-jerk reaction, now seems to be a well-thought out and planned statement. Further fuel was added by Condoleezza Rice's advice to Pakistan for 'transparency'. It encouraged India to threat Pakistan of armed aggression. To press a bit more, President of Pakistan's conciliatory approaches were misconstrued as weakness and portrayed as guilt. Pakistan army is compelled to disengage from War on Terror on Afghan border and to focus on its eastern borders threatened by India. This situation does not augur well for the security and stability of both the countries and the region. India's clear insinuation to use nuclear weapons against Pakistan can be termed a highly reckless gesture that can culminate into tragedy. Indian media has adopted a jingoistic posture too and provoking Indian public opinion against Pakistan. This resulted in street protests against Pakistan. The Indian film industry has started blaming Pakistan with Indian entertainment channels suddenly spewing anti-Pakistan venom instead of glitz and glamour. The answer to the crisis does not lie in reacting over guess works and conjectures without concrete intelligence and evidence. Combustible statements, putting off the fifth round of the Composite Dialogue and provocative actions ought to be avoided and bilateral efforts be made to resolve the differences in a mature manner. It is time to show restraint and reconciliation. The writer is UK-based research scholar