Peace and Reality: The Foundation for the Future
The regional and global environment has shifted in ways that make dialogue between Pakistan and India not only desirable but necessary for New Delhi. Pakistan has steadily gained diplomatic stature post-Marka-e-Haq through its constructive role in West Asia, showcasing its ability to mediate in a war that seemed intractable. India, by contrast, is showing signs of unease and retreat. The contrast is striking and it underscores why the pursuit of dialogue, particularly for India, is the path forward.
Pakistan has consistently held that dialogue is the only path to resolving differences, a stance reaffirmed in a statement from the Foreign Office on 10 May 2025, the day the US mediated a ceasefire between Pakistan and India. The statement conveyed Pakistan’s readiness for constructive diplomacy and comprehensive dialogue to address all bilateral issues, including the Kashmir dispute, through peaceful means. The willingness to participate in a meaningful dialogue with India was reiterated by PM Shehbaz Sharif in July 2025 during the visit of British High Commissioner to Pakistan’s visit to his office. India, however, has often chosen belligerence over engagement as high-level officials have maintained the rhetoric of Operation Sindoor’s continuity as well as bellicosity through constant reiteration of the facile and appealing phrase “terror and talks cannot coexist”, an electoral slogan associated with Mr Modi. Yet transforming an electoral catchphrase into a policy dogma risk colouring nuances in black and white.
At this point it is worth noting that India’s claim to higher moral ground by refusing talks with Pakistan on the basis of terrorism is undermined by serious allegations of criminal networks operating within its own territory, which weaken its carefully cultivated image as a responsible security actor. US prosecutors have charged Goldy Brar and Lawrence Bishnoi over the June 2023 killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada, while Operation Hard Ball has indicted 37 defendants linked to India-based transnational crime groups, exposing India-origin syndicate networks operating across the West. These developments have delivered a substantial blow to New Delhi’s reputation by revealing Indian-linked jail-run criminal networks involved in diaspora intimidation and transnational target killings. They also draw attention to weaknesses in India’s domestic oversight and undermine its claimed moral authority on terrorism and extremism under Western probing. Predominantly weakening India’s framing of itself as a victim of cross-border extremism, India’s credibility as a trusted US security partner is on trial as it harboured organised criminal networks on its soil, entangled in narcotics, extortion, and assassination.
Nonetheless, saner voices rising from India look beyond the phoney terrorist rhetoric. They include Mr Dulat, RAW’s former chief who signed a joint letter to call Mr Modi to re-open dialogue with Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir, urging de-escalation for lasting regional peace. However, they have been dismissed by aggressive elements, portraying such appeals as echoing Islamabad’s narrative and accusing them of undermining India’s national interest. However, it is within India’s national interest to stop resisting dialogue because as voiced by Mr Tharoor, for both countries dialogue is not defeat, nor peace is weakness. Likewise, other high profile figures including Mr Naravane, India’s former Chief of Army Staff and Mr Hosabale, the current General Secretary of the RSS have expressed the importance of keeping certain doors open while also signalling a willingness to engage in dialogue so that commerce, trade, and people to people contact may continue and strengthen. Such rational voices have been welcomed by Pakistan, as indicated by Mr Andrabi, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson, reaffirming Islamabad’s commitment to meaningful international engagement, respect for sovereignty, and principles of diplomacy as the pathway for regional stability as well as global peace. The recent agreement between Pakistan, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia, demonstrated Pakistan’s willingness to accept regional and global realities to work for peace and security.
Although Mr Modi has touted the importance of diplomacy and dialogue to resolve global conflicts in the context of renewed hostilities in West Asia, similar standards of peaceful negotiations are not applied by New Delhi within the context of Pakistan. Nonetheless, India’s resistance to acknowledge Pakistan’s rising global stature and rejecting dialogue has risked it to become a global pariah. What was initially Mr Modi’s long-standing effort to diplomatically isolate Pakistan on the world stage has backfired. Now, Mr Modi has avoided public appearances and has even stopped visiting places where his presence would once have been expected. His absence from the state funeral of Mr Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was noticeable. It was a moment when India could have demonstrated respect and solidarity by sending top national leaders to a country it had once called its strategic partner, yet it chose a lower-level delegation.
The strategic realities confronting South Asia have changed, and so too must the policies that shape its future. India cannot continue to reject dialogue by invoking terrorism while its own credibility on counterterrorism is increasingly questioned by international partners. In the long run, credible diplomacy rather than uncompromising rhetoric will provide the strongest foundation for regional peace and security.
