India-Pakistan Relations: Why Dialogue Is Not Defeat and Peace Is Not Weakness
For more than two decades, the relationship between India and Pakistan has followed a dishearteningly predictable cycle. This pattern typically begins with cautious diplomatic overtures and hopeful summits, only to be abruptly derailed by terrorist attacks—often traced back to elements operating from Pakistani territory. From the Agra Summit to the Lahore Declaration and the Ufa meeting, each attempt at dialogue has been overshadowed by violence, creating a deep-seated mistrust in India towards Pakistan's military establishment and its so-called "deep state."
The Vicious Cycle of Engagement and Violence
The historical record is stark and illustrative. When the horrific 26/11 Mumbai attacks occurred, the Pakistani foreign minister was actually in Delhi to sign a visa liberalization agreement. Similarly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's landmark visit to Lahore for Nawaz Sharif's family celebrations was followed just three weeks later by the assault on the Pathankot air base. These incidents have reinforced a narrative where Indian peace initiatives are consistently undermined by Pakistani terrorism, which civilian authorities in Islamabad appear either unable or unwilling to control.
This has resulted in a diplomatic stalemate that has hardened into doctrine: India insists it will not engage in dialogue until Pakistan dismantles its terrorism infrastructure, while Pakistan maintains that dialogue must precede any progress. The impasse persists, fueled by bitter experiences like the Kargil conflict following the Lahore Declaration, the Mumbai attacks after backchannel breakthroughs, and the Pathankot and Pulwama incidents occurring amidst renewed diplomatic contact.
The Perils of Permanent Disengagement
While "no dialogue" might seem like a principled stance, it cannot serve as a permanent strategy. In the volatile environment of the Indian subcontinent, silence represents not strategy but dangerous stasis. The absence of communication allows tensions to fester rather than freeze. In today's digital age, where social media and hyper-nationalist echo chambers amplify combative rhetoric, the risk of escalation has increased dramatically. A misinterpreted statement, another terrorist attack, or a political provocation could spiral into confrontation—not necessarily because either side desires war, but because neither maintains the channels to prevent it.
The Indian establishment, understandably weary of being blindsided, has concluded that dialogue without accountability amounts to self-deception rather than diplomacy. Yet complete disengagement represents a surrender to cynicism rather than a solution to complex bilateral challenges.
Toward a More Nuanced Diplomatic Architecture
The fundamental challenge lies in imagining a framework for engagement that acknowledges India's legitimate security concerns while preventing the two nuclear-armed neighbors from descending into permanent estrangement. This requires moving beyond summit-centric diplomacy toward a more layered, resilient architecture of contact—one that includes but is not limited to official dialogue.
In the long term, the most effective deterrent to cross-border hostility may not be military might or diplomatic isolation, but rather the cultivation of human relationships that resist the logic of enmity. This calls for enhanced people-to-people engagement in sectors where security risks are minimal.
The Power of People-to-People Connections
Cultural exchanges, sporting ties, academic collaborations, medical visas, and pilgrimage opportunities do not offer panaceas, but they do serve as important pressure valves. These connections allow for human contact even amidst political hostility and help expand the constituency for peace within Pakistan—a constituency that, while often marginalized, remains significant.
Consider the potential impact of relaxed visa regimes for Pakistani students, athletes, artists, and medical patients. These individuals typically pose minimal security threats, yet their positive experiences in India could challenge prevailing stereotypes back home. Similarly, monitored exchanges of scholars and journalists could help counter the mutual caricatures that dominate public discourse in both countries.
Such exchanges do not require trust—they require safeguards. And the potential returns in mutual understanding far exceed the risks involved.
Balancing Principles with Pragmatism
Critics will inevitably argue that such gestures reward Pakistan without extracting accountability or dilute India's principled stand against cross-border terrorism. However, engagement should not be mistaken for endorsement. Rather, it represents an investment in a future where meaningful dialogue becomes possible because the groundwork has been carefully prepared.
India can maintain its firm demand for the dismantling of terror networks while simultaneously exploring avenues of contact that do not compromise security. The notion that Pakistan must make the "first move" need not preclude calibrated Indian outreach. New Delhi could establish clear benchmarks—such as visible action against known terror outfits, arrests of specific individuals, or curbs on inflammatory rhetoric from proscribed organizations.
If these conditions are met, even partially, India could respond with reciprocal gestures: resuming Track II dialogues, restoring sporting ties, or reopening consular channels. The key lies in moving from binary diplomacy (talk or don't talk) to incremental diplomacy (talk as conditions evolve).
The Role of Regional Multilateralism
Regional forums like SAARC have been paralyzed by bilateral tensions, but newer platforms focusing on climate cooperation, disaster relief, pandemic response, or even Indus waters management could offer neutral humanitarian ground for collaboration. These are areas where cooperation is not merely desirable but essential for regional stability and prosperity.
Peace as Process, Not Event
Ultimately, the goal should not be to resume dialogue for its own sake, but to create conditions where dialogue becomes sustainable. This requires recognizing that peace represents a process rather than a single event—a process demanding patience, persistence, and a willingness to engage even when outcomes remain uncertain.
India must continue to insist that terrorism remains non-negotiable while simultaneously signaling that peace is not impossible. There need be no rush toward summit-level interactions, but lower-level contact, perhaps initially on neutral ground, could represent a meaningful beginning.
India-Pakistan relations will never be frictionless. The wounds of history run deep, and present-day provocations remain all too real. Yet permanent disengagement offers no solution. The challenge for policymakers lies in crafting a strategy that remains firm on security, flexible on contact, and clear in its purpose: to prevent conflict rather than merely postpone it.
Perhaps the most important truth we must recognize and communicate to our people is this: peace does not constitute weakness, and dialogue, when conducted wisely and with clear-eyed purpose, does not represent defeat.
