The prospect of dialogue between India and Pakistan has always been fraught with complexities, hopes and disappointments. As External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar recently stated, the “era of uninterrupted dialogue” with Pakistan is over. While dialogue remains a crucial tool in international diplomacy, the challenges of engaging with Pakistan require a nuanced approach. The backdrop of this shift is critical to understanding its implications. For decades, India has pursued various avenues of dialogue with Pakistan, ranging from Track II diplomacy to high-level talks. However, the persistent challenge of terrorism, cross-border violence, and Pakistan’s ambivalent stance on nurturing non-state actors has eroded the credibility of dialogue as an effective tool for peace.
India and Pakistan have engaged in numerous rounds of dialogue since their partition in 1947. From the Tashkent Agreement to the Shimla Accord, the Lahore Declaration to the Agra Summit, each instance has been marked by a cyclical pattern: periods of hope followed by setbacks, often triggered by acts of terrorism or military confrontations. The Mumbai attacks in 2008, the Pathankot airbase attack in 2016, and the Pulwama attack in 2019 are just a few examples of how trust has been shattered time and again, derailing diplomatic efforts.
The core issue between the two nations has been Pakistan’s persistent support for cross-border terrorism, coupled with its refusal to recognise India’s sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir, which has been a major impediment to meaningful dialogue. On the other hand, India’s stance has been clear: talks and terror cannot go hand in hand. This position has been reiterated by the present Government, emphasising that Pakistan must take concrete steps to dismantle terrorist infrastructure on its soil before any meaningful dialogue can resume. EAM’s statement comes in the wake of significant developments, including the abrogation of Article 370, which has fundamentally altered the dynamics in Jammu and Kashmir. India’s firm stance that the matter is now settled signals a new resolve that any future engagement with Pakistan will be on terms set by New Delhi, not under external pressures or diplomatic niceties.
The problem lies not in the concept of dialogue but in the asymmetry of intentions. For India, dialogue aims to resolve disputes and foster cooperation. For Pakistan, however, dialogue has often been used as a tool to gain international legitimacy while continuing its covert support for anti-India activities. The recent shift reflects a more realistic appraisal of the situation, acknowledging that dialogue without corresponding actions from Pakistan is not only futile but also potentially counterproductive. It gives Pakistan the time and space to regroup and recalibrate its strategies while projecting a false image of normalcy to the international community.
The international community has often played a significant role in the India-Pakistan dialogue process. While global powers may advocate for dialogue to ensure regional stability, they do not always fully grasp the nuances of India-Pakistan relations, particularly the impact of cross-border terrorism on the Indian psyche. India’s recent diplomatic engagements have altered the geopolitical landscape. This shift has allowed India to assert its stance more confidently globally. India’s position has gained traction internationally, with more countries recognising the link between Pakistan’s support for terrorism and regional instability.
A hard-earned wisdom is that dialogue for the sake of dialogue is a flawed approach. Given the historical context and the current geopolitical realities, the path forward for India-Pakistan relations must be conditional engagement. India must set clear, non-negotiable preconditions for any future talks, primarily centred around the cessation of support for terrorism. India should continue to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, particularly in forums like the Financial Action Task Force, where Pakistan’s support for terrorism can be highlighted. In the meantime, people-to-people contact and trade relations, where feasible, can continue in a limited capacity to maintain some level of engagement. Simultaneously, India must strengthen its own defence and counterterrorism capabilities to deter any potential aggression.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
