If everything had gone smoothly, foreign ministers of India and Pakistan would have held discussions in New York last week on the sidelines of the current session of the UN General Assembly. But the course of true diplomacy never runs smoothly, especially in South Asia and the hopes of a meeting that would have been the first between the two foreign ministers in three years collapsed as abruptly as the offer of talks from Pakistan’s new Prime Minister Imran Khan. But this time the reasons cited by one party, India, for cancelling the meeting on Sept. 21, a day after it formally accepted the invitation, looked as silly as they were unconvincing.

True, a government reserves the right to change its decision factoring in the latest developments. But the developments India cited were anything but the latest. The brutal killing of the trooper of India’s Border Security Forces by “Pakistan-based entities” took place on Sept. 17. If the issuing of 20 commemorative stamps honoring Burhan Wani, a 22-year-old Kashmiri separatist rebel commander, was giving a stamp of approval to terrorism, that happened before Khan assumed office.

So we are back to the days of allegations and counter -allegations, with India drawing attention to “the evil agenda of Pakistan” and the Pakistani leader criticizing “small men occupying big offices” in India.

Whoever may be responsible, any potential fresh start between the two governments has now been lost in a new round of recriminations. Given the present state of India-Pakistan relations, nothing tangible would have come out of the meeting between Sushma Swaraj and her Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi. Even while accepting Pakistan’s offer, India was at pains to clarify that this would be a meeting, not a dialogue, whatever the difference between the two. But at least it would have led to the easing of tensions along the borders where ceasefire violations have escalated and shelling by both sides is killing and displacing civilians.

So India lost an opportunity for a new beginning. It should now think of accepting Pakistan’s offer to resume on-and-off talks over a ceasefire agreement along the Line of Control dividing the two parts of Kashmir.

India has always maintained that there can be no comprehensive dialogue as long as Pakistan indulges in what New Delhi calls terrorist activities on Indian soil. India also wants those responsible for the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 on the Indian Air Force airbase in Pathankot in Punjab state and an army camp in Uri in Jammu and Kashmir that left 19 Indian soldiers dead in 2016 to be brought to justice. But experience shows that suspension of talks in protest or as punishment is no guarantee against terror attacks. India can insist that the agenda for talks should include terrorism including a commitment to punish the perpetrators in a way convincing to a third party. India should not forget that Pakistan too is a victim of terrorism.

Another objection usually raised by India is that it is the army that sets the security and foreign policy agenda for Pakistan. Whether right or wrong, this has always helped the civilian government in Islamabad to appear reasonable and flexible in negotiations and later go back on its commitments blaming the army. Now even if Indian fears are justified, what Pakistan has now is a civilian government that is on the same wavelength with the army when it comes to India. Both India and Pakistan should realize how tension on the border is preventing them from focusing more on the economy and on the well-being of their people. As Pakistan’s army chief Gen. Bajwa says, the South Asia region cannot prosper, unless both India and Pakistan come to an agreement.

While both India and Pakistan face different challenges, there are a number of issues and areas where they can help each other.