The 2015 revival of the comprehensive dialogue between Pakistan and India appeared, for a fleeting moment, to offer a reprieve from decades of estrangement. Long frozen by mistrust and punctuated by conflict, the bilateral relationship has historically hovered between standoff and skirmish, with only brief interludes of hope. This fresh attempt structured under a rubric that promised to address not just political and security concerns but also humanitarian, economic, and cultural dimensions, held the potential to transform a rivalry that has consumed generations. Yet, like many such initiatives before it, this effort was soon overwhelmed by the very forces it sought to overcome, mutual suspicion, domestic pressures, geopolitical interference, and the ever-lingering shadow of Kashmir.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Cssprepforum, led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, supports 70,000+ monthly aspirants with premium CSS/PMS prep. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for daily CSS/PMS updates, solved past papers, expert articles, and free prep resources.
At its inception, the dialogue aimed to break from the narrow confines of single-issue negotiations. Rather than limiting discussion to one or two high-voltage topics, the framework proposed an expansive agenda that included trade normalization, counterterrorism coordination, border management, water disputes, humanitarian exchanges, and most critically, the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The breadth of this agenda was both its strength and its vulnerability. On one hand, it acknowledged that peace cannot be compartmentalized; on the other, it required an extraordinary level of political will to move forward on multiple contentious fronts simultaneously.
The promise of economic cooperation, for instance, has always lingered as a low-hanging fruit in India-Pakistan relations. With vast untapped markets on either side of the border and significant complementarities in sectors such as textiles, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals, trade normalization could bring tangible benefits to millions. Proposals such as granting Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status and establishing joint economic zones had been tabled repeatedly, and the comprehensive dialogue framework gave these ideas a new lease on life. Trade, after all, has the potential to build stakes in peace. Yet, economic overtures rarely survive the political climate. The moment a security incident erupts—whether real, alleged, or manufactured, economic progress is rolled back, tariffs are reinstated, and cross-border transit is frozen.
Beyond trade, the need for cooperation in combating terrorism is perhaps the most urgent yet most sensitive component of the dialogue. Both countries have suffered from extremist violence, and both continue to accuse each other of enabling it. The dialogue envisioned a mechanism for intelligence sharing and joint investigation, tools that could have helped lower tensions and prevent cycles of retaliation. However, these ambitions faltered almost immediately in the face of attacks such as those in Pathankot and Uri, after which the entire peace process was suspended. In a region where a single event can reverse years of quiet progress, no counterterrorism cooperation can take root unless there is political insulation and mutual trust.
Water remains another pressing issue that found space within the dialogue structure. As climate stress intensifies and both countries face acute water shortages, disputes over the Indus Waters Treaty have sharpened. The treaty, remarkably resilient despite wars and cold phases, has nonetheless come under strain due to increasing demand, new dam constructions, and nationalist posturing. The dialogue framework provided a platform to modernize the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanisms and to move toward cooperative river management. Instead, water too has become a tool of coercion, with threats of treaty suspension surfacing during diplomatic stand-offs.
Perhaps the most understated yet crucial pillar of the dialogue was its inclusion of people-to-people interaction. Public perception in both countries has often been shaped by media-fuelled nationalism and historical grievances. Cultural exchanges, relaxed visa regimes, student interactions, and sporting diplomacy could have served as a soft buffer against hard state policies. The logic was simple, if people could see each other as individuals rather than adversaries, the space for dialogue would naturally widen. Unfortunately, every effort in this direction has been met with nationalist backlash. Artists and athletes are vilified, filmmakers are censored, and even academic collaborations are branded as subversive.
Still, none of these areas can be meaningfully addressed without confronting the core of the dispute, Kashmir. For over seven decades, this issue has been the centrifugal force around which every India-Pakistan crisis has revolved. While both countries claim to support a peaceful resolution, their positions are fundamentally opposed. For Pakistan, the right of self-determination remains the cornerstone, while India insists on territorial sovereignty. Events such as the 2019 abrogation of Article 370 by India not only deepened the existing fault lines but also rendered diplomatic engagement practically impossible. For Islamabad, the move was a violation of international commitments and bilateral understandings; for New Delhi, it was an internal matter. The result was yet another suspension of dialogue, followed by heightened rhetoric and border skirmishes.
In addition to these structural challenges, the domestic political landscapes in both countries often hinder sustained engagement. In India, governments have increasingly relied on muscular nationalism, where any concession to Pakistan is painted as weakness. With elections looming or political capital at stake, few leaders dare to make bold diplomatic overtures. In Pakistan, shifting civil-military dynamics, internal political volatility, and periodic leadership crises make consistent foreign policy difficult. Consequently, even when backchannel negotiations succeed in restarting talks, they rarely survive leadership transitions or regime changes.
The trust deficit, rooted in history and exacerbated by every failed initiative, continues to cast a long shadow over dialogue. Decades of wars, betrayals, and missed opportunities have hardened public opinion, making it easier for hawks on both sides to derail the peace process. Every step toward engagement is seen through a lens of suspicion. Confidence-building measures are dismissed as tactics, and even humanitarian gestures are viewed as public relations stunts. In such an environment, genuine dialogue requires not just diplomatic skill, but sustained courage.
Adding to these internal constraints is the role of external actors. The strategic rivalry between China and the United States has created competing pressures for both India and Pakistan. India’s growing alignment with the U.S. through defense pacts and economic cooperation is viewed with concern in Islamabad, which in turn leans further into its relationship with Beijing. This triangular dynamic complicates regional diplomacy, as each move in bilateral talks is scrutinized through the prism of broader geostrategic calculations. Moreover, countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Russia, all of whom have historical ties with both nations, attempt to mediate or influence outcomes, often muddying the waters rather than clarifying them.
Finally, the erratic nature of leadership transitions in both countries often resets the diplomatic table. New administrations bring new doctrines, frequently discarding the cautious progress made by their predecessors. What was agreed behind closed doors is often denied in public once a change in government occurs. This lack of continuity renders dialogue frameworks fragile and vulnerable to reversal.
Yet, despite these constraints, the need for dialogue has never been greater. South Asia remains one of the least economically integrated and most militarized regions in the world. Both Pakistan and India spend enormous portions of their budgets on defense, while millions remain in poverty. Climate change, health crises, and food insecurity are regional problems that demand regional solutions. Neither country can afford to remain locked in a perpetual state of hostility. The comprehensive dialogue, though imperfect, offered a structure for engagement, one that could be improved, expanded, and institutionalized if both sides muster the political will.
CSS Solved Current Affairs Past Papers
Unlock the power of insight with CSS Solved Current Affairs (2010 – To Date) by Sir Ammar Hashmi; your ultimate guide to mastering CSS with precision, clarity, and confidence!
What is required now is a shift in mindset. Peace cannot be conditional. It cannot be held hostage to provocations or public opinion swings. Instead, it must be framed as a strategic imperative, pursued with consistency, patience, and foresight. Just as France and Germany moved beyond centuries of enmity to become pillars of European integration, so too can India and Pakistan reimagine their future, not through grand pronouncements, but through quiet, steady diplomacy.
The road to normalization is undeniably long and fraught. But the alternative, a region trapped in an endless loop of hostility, is far costlier. Comprehensive dialogue, for all its past failures, remains the only viable instrument for change. It is not a guarantee of peace, but it is the beginning of it. And beginnings, however fragile, must be protected.
