Opinion For India-Pakistan, peace is not weakness, dialogue is not defeat
In the long run, the most effective deterrent to cross-border hostility may not be military might or diplomatic isolation, but the presence of human relationships that resist the logic of enmity. This calls for enhanced people-to-people engagement, especially in sectors where the risk of infiltration or misuse is low
Indians have a well-justified mistrust of the Pakistan military and in particular of its “deep state”, who have often proved duplicitous and are not above lying to their own people to frame military engagements as victories. For over two decades, the trajectory of India-Pakistan relations has followed a grimly familiar pattern: Cautious overtures, hopeful summits, and then, inevitably, a terrorist attack that derails the process. From Agra to Lahore to Ufa, each attempt at dialogue has been shadowed by violence — invariably traced back to actors operating from Pakistani soil. When 26/11 happened in Mumbai, the then-Pakistani foreign minister was in Delhi to negotiate and sign an agreement for liberalising visas. Few can forget that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Lahore for Nawaz Sharif’s birthday and his granddaughter’s wedding was followed three weeks later by an assault on the Pathankot air base. The narrative has become tiresomely predictable: Indian peace initiatives undermined by Pakistani terrorism – which the civilians in Islamabad seem unable or unwilling to curb. The result is a diplomatic impasse that has hardened into doctrine: India will not talk until Pakistan dismantles the infrastructure of terrorism. Pakistan, in turn, insists that dialogue must precede progress. The stalemate persists.
New Delhi’s reluctance to engage is rooted in bitter experience. The Kargil conflict followed the Lahore Declaration. The Mumbai attacks came after backchannel breakthroughs. Pathankot and Pulwama occurred in the wake of renewed diplomatic contact. Each time, civilian peacemakers in Pakistan — journalists, academics, retired diplomats — have failed to demonstrate the leverage or institutional will to prevent recurrence. The Indian establishment, weary of being blindsided, has concluded that dialogue without accountability is not diplomacy; it is self-deception.
Yet “no dialogue” cannot be a permanent answer. Silence is not strategy, it is stasis. In a region as volatile as our Indian subcontinent, stasis is dangerous. The absence of communication does not freeze tensions; it allows them to fester. In the age of social media and hyper-nationalist echo chambers, combative rhetoric can escalate faster than conventional diplomacy can contain. A misinterpreted statement, a terrorist attack, or a political provocation could spiral into confrontation — not because either side wants war, but because neither has the channels to prevent it.
The challenge, then, is to imagine a framework for engagement that acknowledges India’s legitimate security concerns while also preventing the two countries’ seemingly irresistible descent into permanent estrangement. This requires a shift from summit-centric diplomacy to a more layered, resilient architecture of contact — one that includes, but is not limited to, official dialogue.
In the long run, the most effective deterrent to cross-border hostility may not be military might or diplomatic isolation, but the presence of human relationships that resist the logic of enmity. This calls for enhanced people-to-people engagement, especially in sectors where the risk of infiltration or misuse is low. Cultural and sporting exchanges, academic collaborations, medical visas, and pilgrimages are not panaceas, but they are pressure valves. They allow for human contact even in a climate of political hostility. They also help enlarge the constituency for peace within Pakistan — a constituency that is often marginalised, but not insignificant.
Let’s consider the impact of relaxed visa regimes for Pakistani students, sportsmen, artists, and patients. These are individuals who are unlikely to pose security threats, yet whose experiences in India could challenge prevailing stereotypes back home. I am yet to meet a Pakistani visitor to India who has not gone back with overwhelmingly positive feelings about our country. Similarly, exchanging visits of scholars and journalists to each country, even under monitored frameworks, could help counter the mutual caricatures that dominate public discourse. Such exchanges do not require trust; they require safeguards. And they offer returns that far exceed their risks.
Of course, critics will argue that such gestures reward Pakistan without extracting accountability, that they dilute India’s principled stand against cross-border terrorism. But engagement is not endorsement. It is investment — in a future where dialogue is possible because the ground has been prepared. India can maintain its demand for dismantling terror networks while still exploring avenues of contact that do not compromise security.
Moreover, the idea that Pakistan must make the “first move” is not incompatible with calibrated outreach. India can set clear benchmarks: For instance, visible action against known terror outfits, the arrest of specific individuals, or curbs on the inflammatory words and actions of proscribed terror organisations. If these are met, even partially, New Delhi could respond with reciprocal gestures — resuming Track II dialogues, restoring sporting ties, or reopening consular channels. The key is to move from binary diplomacy (talk or don’t talk) to incremental diplomacy (talk as and when conditions evolve).
There is also a case for regional multilateralism. Forums like SAARC have been paralysed by bilateral tensions, but newer platforms — such as climate cooperation, disaster relief or pandemic response, maybe even Indus waters management — could offer neutral humanitarian ground. These are areas where collaboration is not just desirable but necessary.
Ultimately, the goal is not to resume dialogue for its own sake, but to create conditions where dialogue is sustainable. This means recognising that peace is not an event but a process. It requires patience, persistence, and a willingness to engage even when outcomes are uncertain. It also requires clarity. India must continue to insist that terrorism is non-negotiable, but it must also signal that peace is not impossible. There should be no rush to agree to a summit-level interaction. But lower-level contact, perhaps initially on neutral ground, could be a beginning.
India–Pakistan relations will never be frictionless. The wounds of history are deep, and the provocations of the present are real. But permanent disengagement is not a solution. It is a surrender to cynicism. The challenge before policymakers is to craft a strategy that is firm on security, flexible on contact, and clear on purpose — to prevent conflict, not merely postpone it.
Indians have a well-justified mistrust of the Pakistan military and in particular of its “deep state”, who have often proved duplicitous and are not above lying to their own people to frame military engagements as victories. Perhaps the first truth that we must both realise and explain to our people is that peace is not weakness — and dialogue, when conducted wisely, is not defeat.
The writer is MP, Lok Sabha, and chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs
Share
