If September 11 has taught the world anything, it is not to take a chance. The realisation that we live in a dangerously unpredictable world has killed innocence in everyday life. Suddenly, men with beards, those with Muslim-sounding names, even the accidental window-shopping tourist, are all objects of suspicion. We expect death to lurk in every corner, and where we find none, we only double our efforts, armed with metal detectors and x-ray machines.

Nothing brings out the post-9-11 paranoia better than the scare that India and Pakistan's sabre-rattling has created in the world community. Western media-led, of course, by the American press-is replete with stories of an imminent nuclear war between the two neighbours. And everybody, excepting a majority of Indians and Pakistanis, believe those stories. Country after country has been urging its citizens to leave the troubled region. Surprisingly, even United Nations agencies have been pulling out their employees from the subcontinent.

Would the western world's response have been similar had the September 11 attacks not happened? Maybe not. India and Pakistan have been at each other's throat ever since they were carved up in 1947 by the departing British. They have fought full-blown wars four times in the last 52 years, and yet the two have managed to not completely destroy each other. Besides, what is the immediate provocation this time round? Insurgency and killing of soldiers in Kashmir? Well, that's as old as the history of the two nations.

A more plausible explanation for the sabre rattling, then, could be the crises the two administrations face in their respective countries. For Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Gujarat was proving to be the NDA's (the uneasy coalition he leads) nemesis, and a great opportunity for rival Congress to emerge as a non-communal, growth-oriented alternative at the Centre. Pakistan's CEO, Pervez Musharraf, had his own share of controversies to deflect attention from. His support to the US in crushing the Taliban in Afghanistan and disbanding Al-Qaeda had peeved Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan, and put his own future under question. The referendum that he used to demonstrate his popularity was at best controversial. Ergo, what better than a war bogey to take people's mind off pressing internal issues?

What adds to the fear in the current confrontation-and it is a valid fear-is the dramatic increase in the two neighbours' power to inflict devastating damage on each other. Both the countries have nuclear power. Pakistan is estimated to have anything between 25 and 50 nuclear bombs, and India between 75 and 100. But an argument that the US itself has been using to justify its stockpile of nuclear weapons is that such a capability does not mean unfair military advantage in the case of a war. Rather, it prevents a war from taking place. How? The reasoning is that if a threatening nation knows that its opponent has nuclear capability and is willing to use it, it will not engage in a real war. In fact, by ''keeping their options open'', India and Pakistan might actually be keeping a war from happening.

If that is obvious to a large number of people both in India and Pakistan, why is the world community reacting to the situation with such alarm? Uncharitable as the argument may sound, the fact is that countries across the world are viewing world events increasingly from America's point of view. But the America that was born post-9-11 is not even the America of Cold War. It is a much more insecure and vulnerable America. An America that suddenly is not so sure just who its enemies are, or how they will strike. Besides, its war against terrorism cannot be fought alone. It needs both moral and material support from countries around the world. And if the only way that can be got is by playing on the fears of its partners, so be it.

But is this the America, or world, that we want? Certainly not. Terrorism is a deadly menace. It respects no law or religion. And except its own warped worldview, loves nothing. Still, it cannot be crushed with force alone. It has to be won over with reason and persuasion. But that involves believing that the world can be bettered. Knowing that paranoia is the enemy's best friend.