The Indo-Pak Conundrum: Can diplomacy overcome decades of mistrust and antagonism

The India-Pakistan conflict is one of the most enduring and complex disputes of our time, with roots stretching back to the Partition of India in 1947. For over seven decades, the relationship between India and Pakistan has been marked by tension, hostility, and periodic outbreaks of violence, leaving generations scarred and searching for peace. The Indo-Pak conflict is a tale of two nations, born from the same womb of British colonialism, yet destined to follow divergent paths, fuelled by competing nationalisms, ideologies, and interests. From the snow-capped peaks of Kashmir to the scorching deserts of Rajasthan, the India-Pakistan border has witnessed some of the most intense and protracted conflicts of the modern era.

As the world’s two nuclear-armed nations, India and Pakistan, continue to engage in a delicate dance of diplomacy and deterrence, the international community holds its breath, aware that the consequences of miscalculation could be catastrophic. The warhas begun and the damage has begun. It is said that in normal times, the young bury the old. But in times of war, the elders bury their youth. In just two days, this political and social fact has been witnessed on far too many occasions. And the signs that the end of the war do not seem to be coming to an end. Too many people have died. Too much destroyed.

Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad who teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID) writing in the Middle East Monitor asserts: “What was feared has happened. India has launched military strikes deep inside Pakistan, and Islamabad claims to have retaliated in kind. The spark? A terrorist attack over a week ago in Indian-occupied Kashmir. As has become tradition, New Delhi wasted no time in pointing the finger at Islamabad, offering no concrete evidence—only the kind of absolute certainty that usually accompanies nationalist fervour, not forensic investigations. Pakistan, for its part, condemned the attack and pledged cooperation in any investigation—knowing full well it would be ignored. In the theatre of South Asian crisis management, evidence is optional; outrage is mandatory.

Ahmad goes on to add: “Yet, behind this theatrical display of missiles and nationalist chest-thumping simmers a far more cynical reality. This is no spontaneous clash of civilizations or ideologies, but a coldly calculated gambit by two regimes that have discovered the utility of war not in victory, but in diversion. Two governments— each beset by domestic crises, faltering legitimacy, and swelling public anger—have reached for the oldest trick in the authoritarian handbook: start a fire on the border to drown out the blaze at home. When bread runs out, regimes turn to circuses. And nothing distracts quite like the prospect of nuclear Armageddon”.

Ahmad goes on to suggest: “Yet, behind this theatrical display of missiles and nationalist chest-thumping simmers a far more cynical reality. This is no spontaneous clash of civilizations or ideologies, but a coldly calculated gambit by two regimes that have discovered the utility of war not in victory, but in diversion. Two governments—each beset by domestic crises, faltering legitimacy, and swelling public anger—have reached for the oldest trick in the authoritarian handbook: start a fire on the border to drown out the blaze at home. When bread runs out, regimes turn to circuses. And nothing distracts quite like the prospect of nuclear Armageddon”.

If nothing else, there is a frenzy that is being whipped up. And this is a perilous symbol. In the end peaceful co-existence must be the definitive vision. People living far from the borders have had mock drills and post the drills, people have come away either hating the ‘enemy’ more, or feeling bloated that they are better placed than the winner. Even the EAM suggested in the international media that the entire Kashmir question has just one more question to be answered- the capture of POK. His statement alone is over-simplistic simply because if the solution were just that one barrier away, it would have been all over by now. It must be asked why has it taken 76 years to complete the task. When Senior Ministers speak in ways that are conflict-oriented rather than peace driven, the chances of resolving the conflict become even more isolated.

India has claimed it has struck nine terror sites using deep strike missiles in a non-escalatory mission. According to media reports, the Pakistan Army has pounded villages along the LoC in J&K leaving 13 dead. Hundreds took shelter in bunkers including gurudwaras to escape the attacks. India has not fallen back and used revenge attacks with tech prowess using their ability to strike deep with high precision and avoiding any collateral damage. With each passing day, the reports of killings and assaults in towns and villages are growing and, who knows, the ferocity can multiply the number of victims. There are even more narratives of people killed and injured coupled with the claim that collaterals have not yet come into play. Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad Director of the Centre for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), offers a critique of Pakistan’s “raison d’être”. 

India has claimed a diplomatic victory so far as no single ally of India has adversely reacted to India’s attacks. India can count as its open friends the USA, France, Russia and Israel. Pakistan claims its sources of support include China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. For the sake of world peace, one can only hope that the lists don’t grow larger and the war comes to a mediated end. Other Islamic countries have maintained a stoic silence. Yet, their statements on Kashmir in their major conferences clearly suggest they are with Pakistan and want India and Pakistan to talk peace until there is a just solution according to international law. Israeli drones have come into play and this is improper because Israel is in the ICC for war crimes and India should not be indulging in any kind of military ties with a pariah state such as Israel. Meanwhile, an India Today report describes how amidst “ tensions between India and Pakistan simmer in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, the United States has walked a diplomatic tightrope, trying to avoid being seen as favouring one side over the other. This, despite a feeling that under Donald Trump 2.0, Pakistan would be put under the pump over its support for terrorism. Four other top US officials have also spoken with India but the difference lies in the nuance of their language.

Good diplomacy demands broader and deeper understanding of peace. Our Foreign Minister should be wearing a ‘peace-hat’ which abhors the risks of war and does not seek victory on the battle fields. Peace does not come from the barrel of a gun. In other words, political leaders acknowledge the futility of violence and the need for non-violent solutions in conflict resolution. It implies that lasting peace cannot be achieved or maintained through military force or coercion. In the Indo-Pak context, rather than indulge in chest thumping, this is an opportunity to acknowledge that we are off the same stock- same origins and same future. Neither side should be into one-upmanship. Political leaders and bureaucrats can afford to indulge in this. A full-blown war might suit the victor. But they must first count the human cost and other related costs.

The Delhi-based group, Radical Socialist in a statement has unequivocally stated: “Radical Socialist opposes these military strikes because such acts do not go to the heart of the underlying political crisis of Kashmir, which has been exacerbated by the Modi regime since 2019…. We condemn fanning the flames of Islamophobia by large sections of the media and organized right-wing forces, and the culpability that the government has shown on that front. Such military exchanges apart from the loss of innocent lives (state terror by each side), strengthens religious and political hatreds in both India and Pakistan. We hope that ordinary workers and people in both countries will stand on the side of peace and a political resolution of the Kashmir conflict, instead of seeking military solutions.

The socio-economic, environmental, and humanitarian consequences of an all-out war would be nothing less than catastrophic. The socio-economic consequences are mind-blowing.  The conflict would force millions of people to flee their homes, leading to a massive refugee crisis. A nuclear war would result in unprecedented human suffering, with estimates suggesting millions of casualties. The war would lead to significant economic losses, including destruction of infrastructure, loss of trade, and a decline in foreign investment. A nuclear war would release massive amounts of black carbon into the atmosphere, causing a global nuclear winter, which would halt agriculture, alter ocean temperatures, and lower the global average temperature. The environmental impacts of a nuclear war would be long-term, with the smoke from the conflict remaining in the stratosphere for several years.

Crossing the nuclear threshold would have unprecedented consequences, including the potential for global nuclear war and the destruction of entire cities. A nuclear war would further lead to a global economic collapse, with trade and commerce grinding to a halt.

As John F. Kennedy famously said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” The deadliest wars in history are all a testament to that sentiment — it is a repeating pattern with very costly end results. The last large-scale war, World War II, was responsible for the deaths of nearly 70 million people. With the ever-advancing technology in the modern world and a booming population, the next war will undoubtedly bring about an unprecedented number of deaths. Let history be a teacher so that we can avoid committing the same mistakes, and put an end to conflict once and for all”.

Social media frequently offers pearls of wisdom. I read this just now: “War is a strange game, and the only winning move is not to play it”. Aristotle once famously said: “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding…”Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means and demands we use our heart rather than war cries, and false heroism”  

Ranjan Solomon is a political commentator