By Dr. Syed Sibtain H. Shah
Waves of unease between India and Pakistan have once again emerged with intensity after the tragic incident in Pahalgam, where tourists were attacked under strange circumstances. The Tuesday’s attack in the locality in Indian-controlled Kashmir resulted in the deaths of at least 26 people.
On Wednesday, following a cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian government announced a series of measures, including the suspension of its part in the 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, a pact that allows both countries to use distributed waters of the regional rivers to irrigate their respective agricultural lands.
Moreover, in a media conference, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri also announced the closure of the border with Pakistan, slashed the number of Indian diplomatic staff in Pakistan, ordered visiting Pakistani citizens to leave the country within 48 hours, and expelled Pakistani military attaches posted in Pakistan’s diplomatic mission in India. This response has been soundly interpreted as India considers Pakistan responsible for the Pahalgam’s attack.
On Thursday, in a retaliatory move Pakistan also threatened to suspend its participation in all bilateral agreements with India, including the 1972 Simla Agreement. The Simla Agreement was a peace accord signed by the two countries a few months after Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan.
India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed states, share a bitter history of mistrust, conflict, and loss of opportunity to peacefully resolve their lingering issues. The Jammu and Kashmir dispute is the very reason that incessantly pulls these two nations into full-time violent confrontations, blocking avenues of diplomacy and giving way to public enmity. Earlier peace processes like Simla Agreement 1972 and Lahore Declaration 1999 and some back-channel diplomacy in the early 2000s had given fleeting hope, rejected subsequently by reignited acts of terror and changes in political character.
The Pahalgam attacks blocked yet another occasion of oppurtunity for regional stability and caused serious tension for both countries. This ought to have been an occasion for pursuing truth through international investigations or dialogue, but instead, it has become one more reason for the two countries to pursue political confrontation and diplomatic isolation. Further enshrining this developing norm is the Indian government’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty-a long-standing symbol of post-partition cooperation. This tit-for-tat only worsens the situation instead of helping in resolution.
Absence of credible and sober voices for justice and peace is most alarming for both countries. Governments of both countries are in aggressive positions as their television channels, social media influencers and personalities are inciting further antagonism and shutting any doors for dialogue.
In such deadly circumstances, instead of coming together for a joint identification of inquiry or summons for calm, each side dives into a blame game. Authorities, politicians, and intellectuals, as well as the media in both countries, are all pouring the fuel of provocation and distrust. Such a frightful escalation calls for an urgent initiative for peace and reconciliation to keep this area from slipping into a bloody war.
In Pakistan, only a few political figures, such as Awami National Party (ANP) leader Aimal Wali Khan, have publicly called for peace and urged Indian anti-war leaders and civil society to do the same. However, such voices are few and weak. The silence of senior leadership both in Islamabad and New Delhi, is a sign of greater danger.
Yet there is potential, as former Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is known for his personal ties with Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It’s a great opportunity and a unique position to restart dialogue. His previous peace approaches, most notably Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore in 2015 and Nawaz’s participation in oath talking of PM’s Modi in 2014—are remembrances towards the possible goodwill. Similarly, Modi, as an Indian leader and Prime Minister, holds the power to de-escalate and engage in meaningful diplomacy, should he choose dialogue over coercion.
The current situation between India and Pakistan can be analyzed in light of two key theories of International Relations: Realism, which focuses on the use of power to protect national interests, and Liberalism, which emphasizes dialogue, cooperation, and the use of diplomacy between the two sides.
The realist theory of International Relations explains well the increasingly worsening situation between the two state actors in the regions. Realism concerns itself with the behavior of states motivated by their national immediate interests, as well as power and security within an anarchic international system. Both the countries have shown, are behaving like realists- through self-interest, military posturing, avoiding cooperation like talks or treaties for the given time after incident like Pahalgam. Instead of reaching for peace, they resort to threats, blame, and posturing strategies-high stakes rivalry between them, which all classic realists methods require. Liberalism is to be perfect analyzed in attempts for any possible rapprochement between India and Pakistan. Liberalism is evident in cooperation, dialogue, international institutions, economic interdependence, and civil society’s engagement in peace. Liberalist approach reflects earlier peace initiatives, such as the Lahore Declaration, people-to-people contact, backchannel diplomacy, and cultural or trade ties. Contributions from the individuals like Nawaz Sharif, calls for civil society engagement, or bets on political and economic cooperation lie within the realm of liberal principles in which everlasting peace can be achieved through mutual interest, dialogue, and shared norms rather than through force.
Way Forward and Recommendations
- Immediate De-escalation: It is high time for two nations to put a stop to their provocative utterances and actions. The suspension of bilateral agreements like the Indus Water Treaty will have long-term negative effects on partnerships and economic stability in the region. Such agreements should never be allowed to lapse.
- Independent Investigation: The Pahalgam incident should be investigated by an impartial international body to uncover the truth.
- Revival of Peace Channels: It is necessary for revered personalities in Pakistan, such as Nawaz Sharif, and peace advocates in India, to join in. Along with this, civil society, thinkers, and media would have to create a conducive environment for peaceful discourse.
- People-to-People Diplomacy: Academic exchanges, cultural events, and sports diplomacy should be revived to decrease the hostility and mistrust.
- International Mediation and Support: Although at this moment a gap is created between the two coutries due to the acute tension prevailing between them, the global powers, regional players, and international organizations such as United Nations can use some influence to encourage dialogue and provide platforms for peace. The Kashmir issue is an internationally recognized issue, and therefore, it needs to be resolved according to the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under United Nation resolutions.
War is not a solution to the problem but only can prolong it. History shows that previous wars between India and Pakistan have only resulted in destruction, human loss, economic loss, and long-term hostility. It is time to break this cycle. The Pahalgam incident is strongly comdemnable but must not be allowed to derail hopes for peace. Leadership on both sides must rise above politics and choose diplomacy over disaster. The region—and its future generations—deserve no less than a sincere and sustained pursuit of peace and prosperity.
Note: Author of this article holds a PhD degree in Political Science and Public Administration from University of Warsaw, Poland. As an expert on security studies, he wrote various articles including research papers on terrorism, counterterrorism and religious extremism and other topics related to foreign policy and regional politics.
