Pakistan and India are talking again. The US has backed the ongoing talks between the two countries saying it is in their self-interest, and perhaps larger American interest to reduce tensions through dialogue. Indian Prime Minister Manm-ohan Singh, who is in Toronto for the G20 Summit, has expressed happiness over the successful talks between India and Pakistan. He said that the talks between the neighbouring states should continue. Earlier Pakistans Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qur-eshi met Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, who called on him at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while Mr Rehman Malik encountered his counterpart Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram. However, in a nutshell all these talks for the sake of talks appear fruitless. The US is contented because it wants the tension between Pakistan and India to reduce so that Pakistan can spare additional troops for its western border in the war against terror, after withdrawing them from its eastern front. Pakistan, of course, would like to hold talks and resolve all outstanding issues with India so that peace prevails but not at the cost of sovereignty. Meanwhile, Indian obduracy unfortunately continues to prevail. On the eve of the meeting between the two Interior Ministers, India detained a Pakistan-bound ship on the pretext that it was carrying undeclared military hardware, including rocket launchers and anti-aircraft guns. The Panama-registered vessel MV Agean Glory sailed from Monrovia, Liberia, to Bangladesh via Mauritius. It then travelled to Calcutta. According to Indian police, the origin of the weapons was not immediately known. The vessel offloaded civilian goods including a car at Diamond Harbor in the Bay of Bengal, near Calcutta, which also serves as a port for mountainous Nepal, a top police official Bhup-inder Singh told the media. The authorities detained the ship on the plea that the clearing agent had not specified that the ship was carrying weapons. Hence this shows that India is hell bent upon browbeating Pakistan and is sparing no opportunity to pressurise it. Moreover, the recent case of the proposed Pak-China nuclear energy deal is a case in point. The US has recently concluded a similar nuclear deal with India, which went for consideration before the 46 nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). However, China did not block the civil nuclear deal, as it was expecting that the US would likewise not place impediments in the Pak-China deal. Although Hillary Clinton visited China recently, she did not raise the issue of the Pak-China nuclear deal with her counterparts, thus, tacitly accepting it. But as the NSG meeting at Christchurch in New Zealand drew closer, the Indian authorities started pestering the US to raise objections to the deal. Towing the line, the US State Department spokesperson voiced Americas concerns over the deal, which China brushed aside by stating that the deal existed long before it joined the NSG in 2004. That excludes the Pak-China nuclear deal from the purview of any obligations to the NSG. Moreover, China has stressed that the cooperation between the two countries (Pakistan and China) in the area of civilian use of nuclear energy is totally for peaceful purpose. Not satisfied with the turn of events, the Indian premier has again tried to rub it in, by asking Pakistan to clarify its nuclear deal with China. Dr Singh, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You have had your Hyde Act 2006 and 123 Agreement, now stop trying to logjam the Pak-China deal which anyway would be under IAEA safeguards. Anyway, lets come back to the Malik-Chidambaram talks. Chidambaram is the first Indian Minister to visit Pakistan since the Mumbai mayhem. Despite this, he did not spare a single moment insisting that Pakistan take action against the militants, especially those linked to Mumbai attacks. Addressing a press conference in Islamabad, he publicly demanded that Pakistan put more suspects in the Mumbai attacks on trial. India, however, knows that Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorist attacks and now also has ample evidence of Indian involvement in the dastardly deeds being done in Balochistan. Yet, Chid-ambaram had the temerity to come to Islamabad and demand the trial of more suspects in the Mumbai attacks, when it provides only flimsy evidence, which the free and fair judiciary of Pakistan throws out of the window. At the same time, India is going full throttle in upping the ante against Pakistan. There came a barrage of reports, some in the media and others through US and British think-tanks, singing the same allegory: ISI is supporting the Taliban. Matt Waldman, a former Oxfam employee, compiled a report for London School of Economics (LSE) and said the same in his report after interviewing a few handpicked Taliban commanders. Interestingly, RAND and a number of US media reports joined the chorus. However, the truth emerged after Afghan President Hamid Karzai ousted his Security Minster, as well as his Interior Minister, in an unexpected decision. Karzai, who now realises the importance of Pakistan and is keen to open a dialogue with the Taliban, found his Interior Minister Hanif Atmar and National Directorate of Security Chief Amrullah Saleh to be the stumbling blocks in the process. Saleh is an ethnic Tajik, who was a member of the Northern Alliance, which was formed by India and has reportedly been on the payroll of RAW, is the real author of the LSE report; while Atmar, too, was a major critic of the reintegration of the Taliban into the police and the army. The propounder of the theory that ISI funds, trains and arms the Taliban, should deliberate for a moment that would Pakistan army have its own surrogates attack the GHQ in which a serving Brigadier and Lieutenant Colonel were killed by the terrorists, who held a portion of the GHQ hostage for 24 hours. Thus, it is amply clear that the India - with US support - is permeating its venom and ill-will through whatever sources it can muster to destabilise Pakistan. Under the circumstances, talks at any level would be fruitless unless there is a will to resolve the issues. The writer is a political and defence analyst.