IN the last week of last month President Kim Jong Un of North Korea met his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in in a village near the South Korean border. North and South Korea have been divided for more than 70 years and it was the third inter-Korean summit. The last one took place some 11 years ago.

Will the meeting lead to genuine detente and peace in the Korean Peninsula? It is too early to say, for, everything depends on the success of another, even more important historic summit: The one between Kim and US President Donald Trump.

Let us assume that all goes according to the most rosy scenario cooked up by some in the Trump administration and the Korean Peninsula basks in the sunshine of peace.

Naturally, this has turned the world’s attention to another volatile region: South Asia. If Koreas can give up their reservations toward each other

why can’t long-term rivals India and Pakistan? Don’t dark clouds of war hang heavily over South Asia as well?

Of course, there are differences. Korea, unlike the subcontinent, was divided not because the Koreans wanted it but they were unable to prevent it. When Japan surrendered to the World War II Allies in 1945, the Korean Peninsula was split into two zones of occupation — the US-controlled South Korea and the Soviet (or Communist)-controlled North Korea. All Koreans speak one language, use a unique and indigenously developed alphabet “hangul”, and belong to the same racial stock.

But the division of the subcontinent took place along religious lines because those areas constituting Pakistan including Bangladesh wanted it that way. The South Asian conflict is rooted in cultural and religious differences hundreds of years in the making, cemented by decades of British colonial rule. The past still casts a long shadow over India-Pak relations aggravated by the dispute over Kashmir. Another difference is that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers while only one party to the Korean dispute has N-arms.

This makes it all the more urgent that something should be done and done immediately to defuse the rising tension in South Asia. The two have already fought four wars and regularly exchange fire across the disputed border. Of late, the ties have worsened over a host of sticky issues, including cross-border terrorism. The two countries have stopped talking to each other. New Delhi insists on an end to “cross-border terrorism” before a meaningful dialogue process can start with Islamabad. But this, according to Pakistan, is “setting preconditions” and can’t work.

In short, the lack of trust is the main problem and it can only be addressed through diplomatic and political channels. In this connection, the report of an Indian parliamentary panel submitted in January this year should give some hope for those working for peace. The panel has asked India to “remove stumbling blocks” in resolving outstanding issues with Pakistan through dialogue. The Committee on External Affairs said India, as a responsible and credible stakeholder, should not wait for Pakistan to create a conducive environment for improving ties.

Unfortunately, heavy exchanges of shelling have been on the rise over the past 12 months with both countries accusing the other of provocative action on their common border. Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s threat that India would crossing the Line of Control dividing the two parts of Kashmir if it believes Pakistan is putting their citizens in danger has only made matters worse.

There are always the chances of minor cross-border transgressions escalating into major crises, if not shooting wars. Those who refuse to talk to the other side, however justified may be their stance, should be alive to this danger. The leaders of both countries should also be alert to what would happen if there is a spectacular, high-fatality terrorist attack on a civilian target, especially in an election year.