While the political circus in Islamabad keeps audiences entertained for a little longer, let us divert our gaze towards some truly important developments that have been taking place elsewhere. One of them is the exchange of intermittent firing and mortar shelling between Pakistani and Indian border forces near Sialkot, after the latter allegedly opened fire across the border a couple of days ago, killing two people and injuring four others. This follows in the backdrop of the cancellation of foreign secretary level talks between Pakistan and India that were to be held this week. Furthermore, on August 12, 2014, Narendra Modi, the newly elected Indian prime minister, accused Pakistan of fighting proxy wars in Kashmir while visiting Kargil. The Pakistan Foreign Office (FO) has duly condemned the firing and the allegations but it is all really just water under the bridge.The bickering over Kashmir, that perennially contested zone, has always been a cause of rift between the two post-colonial nation states of Pakistan and India. While the actual dispute has seen some progress towards resolution in the past, it has always been used to rile up the masses in both countries. Any infuriation, any frustration and any rancour that exists on either side has been dumped on to the Kashmir issue and in this way the disputed territories — from the Pakistani point of view, at least — of Jammu and Kashmir remain a sore thorn in the side of friendly bilateral relations.The pattern illustrated in the last paragraph actually spills over to almost all other disputes between the two sides as well. Any conflict with India is destined to unceasing spats because it is never just that; in the hands of populist leaders and trigger-happy guardians, trivialities are used to perpetuate the myths and the lies of yesteryears. The wounds of the past have been consciously kept open through the decades because they serve a sad but important function in the national imaginary. Where language, politics, culture and, sometimes, even religion have failed to unite the Pakistani masses into a nation, acrimony with India does the trick every single time. In the political movement preceding the creation of Pakistan, undoing centuries of mutual coexistence in favour of constructing antagonistic identities was deemed necessary. Unsurprisingly then, the same pattern persisted post-1947. Moreover, the trauma of partition is relived again and again, thus impeding the possibility of any meaningful progress towards improving ties. Because of this, the issue of Kashmir is never just a dispute; it becomes a contest between right and wrong. In a comparative sense, the socio-economic differences, stature in international relations, strength of democratic institutions and progress of civil society are genuine reasons to let us collectively inspect the path we are headed down. However, rather than making amends, we seek ephemeral gratification. Hence a cricket match becomes the final battleground between truth and evil where all political differences are to be resolved. Winning that match then takes precedence over alleviating the grievances of the suffering masses. One can be forgiven hoping for a better future pegged on to the increasingly globalised youth of today. Woefully though, this is not the case most of the time. While some narratives die out with erstwhile generations, the animosity with our neighbours has been too deeply imbibed in the national discourse through textbooks and mainstream media. It is because of this reason that citizens, young and old, on both sides of the Line of Control, fervently reproduce the same lies and the same myths that they have been exposed to during their upbringing.Contrary to popular opinion, better relations with India can reap some marked benefits for Pakistan. The vast Indian consumer market, coupled with provisions for importing cheap raw material for producing advanced goods in Pakistan, can bode well. Additionally, reduced tensions with India can free up a sizeable chunk of our defence budget that can be employed towards more productive ends. While this makes a lot of sense, it also brings us to another important aspect of the issue: the role of the army. Despite having some of the best diplomats in the world, Pakistani foreign policy is virtually dictated by the army, whose central role, in the domains of defence, politics and commerce in Pakistan hinges on maintaining animosity with India. Democratic governments have, in the past, tried multiple times to induce some semblance of normality between the warring nations but any and all attempts have been squashed under heavy-soled boots through coups and other perverse measures, marches and sit-ins included.So, with things heating up on the eastern front, it is time both Pakistan and India start accepting the reality that sports and culture can only take them so far. Economics can help too but its role is also qualified. In my opinion, the fundamental fault in the relations between Pakistan and India is the prevailing misperception that leads to some very questionable policy decisions in both countries. The animus is not entirely perceived, as history is replete with instances of actual malice, but the aura of mistrust sidelines real issues and all actions, even genuinely amicable ones, are questioned repeatedly until some hidden motive is etched out that fits the preconceived paradigms of hostility. In his seminal documentary on perceptions of the other, Faces of the Enemy, the gifted Sam Keen asks a timeless question: can we be heroes without making others villains? It is high time we ask ourselves the same. The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations