Arshad Mahmood Awan
After the recent cessation of hostilities, brokered by the United States on Saturday, there is a long and uncertain road ahead for Pakistan and India to rebuild mutual trust. Although a temporary calm has returned, the underlying tensions remain far from resolved. Reestablishing confidence between the two nuclear-armed neighbors will require more than symbolic gestures; it will demand consistent diplomatic engagement, mutual compromise, and political courage on both sides.
US President Donald Trump, in his characteristic manner, suggested that the two countries should “go out and have a nice dinner together.” While the comment was perhaps meant to lighten the mood, it failed to acknowledge the deeply entrenched mistrust that has persisted between India and Pakistan for nearly eight decades. The sheer scale of animosity cannot be overcome with a casual meeting or well-meaning platitudes. It requires a structured peace process backed by serious political will.
Modi’s “New Normal” and Rising Militarism
Compounding the fragility of the ceasefire, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a speech delivered to the Indian nation on Monday, set a troubling tone by suggesting that a “new normal” had been established. According to him, India now reserves the right to conduct military operations across the border into Pakistan, allegedly targeting terrorist infrastructure. This stance not only intensifies regional instability but also signals a shift in India’s strategic posture—one that undermines peace-building efforts.
Modi’s confrontational rhetoric appears to be influenced by rising domestic pressure. Many within India have criticized the role of the United States in mediating the ceasefire, viewing it as a sign of weakened sovereignty. To appease his nationalist base, Modi has opted for a more belligerent narrative. However, this aggressive posture may well backfire, triggering a dangerous cycle of retaliatory violence in South Asia—a region already rife with security challenges.
The Futility of One-Sided Dialogue
For any meaningful peace to take root, dialogue must be comprehensive and inclusive. Whether the communication is facilitated by foreign mediators or through bilateral channels, Pakistan and India must be willing to address all core disputes. Modi’s position—that any future talks with Pakistan should be limited to terrorism and Azad Kashmir—reflects a selective and narrow-minded approach.
If terrorism is to be discussed, then India must also be held accountable for its own destabilizing actions in the region, including its alleged support for anti-state activities within Pakistan. Selective moral posturing serves no purpose; instead, an honest and balanced conversation on all forms of terrorism in South Asia must be initiated.
Moreover, Kashmir cannot be compartmentalized. Restricting discussions to Azad Kashmir while ignoring the larger dispute over Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir betrays the spirit of conflict resolution. The entire territory is internationally recognized as disputed, and ignoring this fact only serves to prolong the conflict. Any sustainable solution must involve an inclusive dialogue that acknowledges the aspirations of the Kashmiri people and upholds international norms.
Revisiting the Simla Accord’s Spirit
Indian leaders often point to the 1972 Simla Accord as the guiding framework for Indo-Pak relations. They cite its emphasis on bilateralism to oppose third-party involvement in dispute resolution. However, if Simla is indeed to be the guiding principle, then its full content must be respected.
The accord explicitly states that pending a final settlement, “neither side shall alter the situation.” Yet, the BJP government’s unilateral decision to revoke Article 370 of the Indian constitution—effectively stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status—was a direct violation of that very principle. By altering the legal and demographic character of the region without bilateral consultation or international consensus, India has fundamentally changed the equation.
The Simla Accord also envisions a final resolution to the Kashmir dispute through peaceful negotiations. If India continues to dodge dialogue on Kashmir while asserting control over the region, it erodes the very foundation of the agreement it claims to uphold.
Forward-Thinking Alternatives to Escalation
Rather than pushing a dangerous “new normal” premised on military aggression, both countries must embrace a new paradigm—one centered on peace, cooperation, and mutual respect. A cycle of retaliatory violence will only lead to mutually assured destruction, especially given the nuclear capabilities on both sides. Cooler heads must prevail, and statesmanship should replace populist grandstanding.
As tensions cool, both sides should take small but meaningful steps toward rebuilding confidence. Confidence-building measures (CBMs) such as diplomatic exchanges, easing of visa regimes, trade normalization, and cultural interactions could gradually reduce hostilities. A reduction in aggressive media narratives and cross-border accusations would also help de-escalate public sentiment.
The Urgency of Water Diplomacy
One critical area where India can demonstrate goodwill is by upholding the Indus Waters Treaty—a landmark agreement that has historically survived even amid war. Recent threats and actions by India to block or divert Pakistan’s rightful share of river water raise serious humanitarian and geopolitical concerns. For a water-stressed country like Pakistan, such tactics are not merely strategic—they are existential threats.
Respecting the Indus Waters Treaty would not only ease tensions but also show the world that India is capable of adhering to its international obligations. It would be a step toward restoring credibility and fostering regional trust.
Conclusion: Replacing Hostility with Dialogue
The current situation between Pakistan and India remains deeply volatile despite the temporary pause in hostilities. Modi’s belligerence and Trump’s symbolic overtures aside, the real challenge lies in reshaping the political narratives in both countries to favor peace over war.
India must reconsider its hardline approach and return to the negotiating table with an open agenda that includes Kashmir, terrorism in all its forms, and water rights. Pakistan, for its part, must continue to advocate for peace while preparing diplomatically and strategically to counter aggressive Indian postures.
Dialogue remains the only sustainable path forward. Ignoring this reality will only perpetuate suffering and keep South Asia trapped in a destructive cycle that benefits no one. It is time for both nations to abandon militaristic illusions and invest in a future defined by peace, prosperity, and mutual respect.
