One year after the devastating terror attack in Pahalgam, the India–Pakistan relationship stands once again at a familiar, dangerous crossroads—caught between the compulsions of domestic politics and the imperatives of regional peace. The tragedy, which claimed innocent lives and shattered a fragile sense of normalcy in Kashmir, reinforced a pattern that has come to define bilateral ties: outrage, retaliation, diplomatic rupture, and prolonged silence.
From the 2019 Pulwama bombing to the 2025 Pahalgam attack, the subcontinent has witnessed how quickly crises can escalate between two nuclear-armed neighbours. Yet, if the past decade has demonstrated anything, it is that coercive posturing and episodic retaliation—whether through military signalling, economic disengagement, or diplomatic downgrades—have failed to produce durable stability. Instead, they have entrenched mistrust while leaving the core disputes unresolved.
The aftermath of Pulwama marked a decisive shift. India’s airstrikes in Balakot signalled a willingness to redefine thresholds, while Pakistan’s response underscored the risks of rapid escalation. The subsequent revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019 further deepened the divide, effectively freezing diplomatic engagement. Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the issue met limited traction beyond traditional allies, while India insisted that the matter remained internal and contingent upon an end to cross-border terrorism.
Amid this hardening of positions, the February 2021 ceasefire agreement along the Line of Control offered a rare moment of hope. Facilitated through backchannel diplomacy, it led to a marked reduction in cross-border firing and civilian casualties. For a brief period, it hinted at the possibility that quiet engagement—away from public rhetoric—could yield tangible results. However, the absence of sustained political dialogue meant that this fragile peace lacked a broader framework, leaving it vulnerable to disruption.
The Pahalgam attack in April 2025 brutally exposed these vulnerabilities. Targeting civilians and designed to provoke maximum outrage, the assault not only reignited tensions but also undermined claims of lasting stability in the region. India’s response—ranging from diplomatic measures to heightened security—was accompanied by strong rhetoric and international outreach. Pakistan, as in previous instances, denied involvement and countered with its own set of retaliatory steps, including suspending bilateral agreements and warning against unilateral actions.
What remains unchanged in this cycle is the absence of structured dialogue. Official channels remain largely dormant, and public discourse on both sides is dominated by suspicion and nationalist assertion. Yet, history offers a different lesson. Periods of relative calm—whether during the Composite Dialogue process of the early 2000s or the ceasefire understandings of 2003 and 2021—were achieved not through coercion, but through sustained engagement, even amid deep disagreements.
There is also a broader regional and global context that cannot be ignored. South Asia today faces pressing economic challenges, climate vulnerabilities, and security threats that transcend borders. Continued hostility between India and Pakistan diverts resources, constrains regional cooperation, and limits the potential of initiatives such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which has remained largely paralysed due to bilateral tensions.
Equally significant is the human dimension of this conflict. Decades of estrangement have severed people-to-people ties that once formed the bedrock of shared cultural and historical connections. Families divided across borders, artists and scholars denied exchange, and dwindling avenues for travel and dialogue have deepened mutual alienation. Cultural diplomacy—through literature, cinema, music, and academic collaboration—has historically played a crucial role in softening hardened perceptions. Reviving such exchanges is not merely symbolic; it is essential for rebuilding trust at the societal level.
Trade, too, remains an underutilised avenue. Before the breakdown in relations, bilateral trade—both formal and informal—demonstrated the economic complementarities between the two countries. Studies by institutions such as the World Bank have repeatedly indicated that India–Pakistan trade has the potential to expand severalfold if barriers are reduced. Economic interdependence, while not a panacea, can create constituencies for peace that make conflict less attractive.
None of this diminishes the central concern that continues to impede dialogue: the persistence of cross-border terrorism. For any meaningful engagement to resume, credible and verifiable steps to dismantle militant networks are essential. This is not merely an Indian demand but a global expectation, reflected in international pressure on Pakistan through mechanisms such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). At the same time, India must recognise that the complete absence of dialogue has historically strengthened hardline positions within Pakistan, particularly within its security establishment.
The challenge, therefore, is to find a pathway that balances accountability with engagement. Backchannel diplomacy, confidence-building measures, and incremental steps—such as restoring diplomatic missions, easing visa regimes, and reopening limited trade—can serve as starting points. These measures do not require grand gestures or immediate resolution of core disputes; rather, they aim to rebuild a minimal level of trust necessary for more substantive negotiations.
Domestic political narratives also demand careful calibration. The temptation to conflate external conflict with internal identity politics carries significant risks, particularly in a diverse society like India. National unity in the face of terrorism must not come at the cost of social cohesion. Similarly, in Pakistan, the continued dominance of security-centric approaches has often constrained civilian-led initiatives for peace.
Ultimately, the choice facing India and Pakistan is stark but clear. They can continue along a path where each crisis reinforces hostility, or they can recognise that perpetual confrontation serves neither strategic nor humanitarian interests. The memory of Pahalgam should not become another milestone in a chronology of conflict; it should instead serve as a reminder of the urgent need to break the cycle.
Restraint, dialogue, and a renewed commitment to engagement are not signs of कमजोरी but of strategic maturity. For two nations bound by geography, history, and an inescapable shared future, the pursuit of peace is not an idealistic aspiration—it is a practical necessity.
~Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai….
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author.
