Peace cannot be negotiated only across conference tables. Generals may prevent wars, and politicians may sign agreements, but only people can make peace endure
FOR nearly eight decades, India and Pakistan have remained trapped in a cycle of suspicion, hostility and missed opportunities. Wars have been fought, ceasefires violated, diplomatic relations suspended and restored, and generations have grown up believing that the neighbours are permanent enemies. Every attempt at reconciliation has eventually yielded to another crisis. Political leaders speak of national security, military preparedness and strategic interests. Television channels amplify nationalist passions. Elections often become occasions to manufacture fear rather than foster understanding.
Yet beneath the rhetoric lies a simple truth: neither India nor Pakistan can change its geography. They are destined to remain neighbours. The only question is whether they choose to remain adversaries or become partners in shaping a more peaceful South Asia.
The renewed interest in Track II diplomacy therefore deserves careful attention. Dialogue between retired diplomats, academics, former military officers, journalists and policy experts has often helped keep communication alive when official diplomacy has broken down. Quiet conversations have, on occasions, paved the way for confidence-building measures that governments themselves could not publicly initiate.
But Track II diplomacy, valuable though it is, has never been enough.
Peace cannot remain the preserve of diplomats, retired generals and strategic experts. Their experience is indispensable, but it is incomplete. Lasting peace cannot be built exclusively in conference halls and luxury hotels. It must acquire social roots. It must belong to ordinary people.
The next stage must go beyond Track II. India and Pakistan need a broad-based people’s peace process in which civil society becomes not merely a participant but also a partner and an ethical auditor of the dialogue itself.
For too long, the relationship between the two countries has been monopolised by the language of security. Every disagreement is interpreted through military logic. Every crisis reinforces the belief that strength alone guarantees stability. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that military preparedness can deter conflict but cannot create reconciliation.
Generals can negotiate ceasefires. Politicians can sign declarations. Only societies can build trust. This distinction is fundamental.
Every diplomatic breakthrough between India and Pakistan has eventually been undermined by domestic politics. Governments change. Electoral compulsions emerge. Nationalist rhetoric once again becomes politically profitable. The gains painstakingly achieved through dialogue are sacrificed to immediate political advantage.
Peace negotiated only from above remains fragile. Peace built from below becomes resilient.
Unfortunately, both countries have allowed suspicion to become institutionalised. India frequently portrays Pakistan primarily through the prism of terrorism. Pakistan, in turn, often views India almost exclusively through the lens of domination and coercion. Decades of conflict have produced mutually reinforcing narratives that leave little room for complexity or empathy.
None of this requires denying painful realities. Terrorist violence has inflicted immense suffering upon India, and militant organisations allegedly operating from Pakistani soil have cast a long shadow over bilateral relations. Equally, Pakistan has repeatedly accused India of interference in its internal affairs, allegations that India has consistently rejected. Intelligence operations, covert actions, proxy conflicts and competing security narratives have become part of the relationship between both states. In several instances, rival claims surrounding violent incidents have remained deeply contested, reinforcing suspicion rather than truth.
The consequence is that entire populations become prisoners of narratives crafted by states.
The greatest casualty is not diplomacy.
It is humanity.
The tragedy is particularly painful because Indians and Pakistanis are not strangers. They share languages, literature, music, cuisine, humour, family histories and cultural traditions that long predate Partition. Millions still carry memories passed down through families divided in 1947. The poetry of Faiz belongs as much to readers in Delhi as in Lahore. Kabir, Bulleh Shah, Ghalib and Tagore continue to speak across borders that they never knew.
Our rivers ignore political frontiers.
The monsoon does not require a visa.
Climate change recognises no Line of Control.
Poverty does not distinguish between nationalities.
Neither do unemployment, public health crises or ecological collapse.
If our problems are increasingly shared, should not our solutions also become shared?
The answer lies in expanding the architecture of peace itself.
Track II diplomacy should evolve into a far broader process involving universities, trade unions, women’s organisations, environmental movements, farmers’ associations, artists, filmmakers, scientists, medical professionals, journalists, youth organisations, business communities and religious leaders committed to coexistence.
Imagine annual India-Pakistan youth forums bringing together students from both countries.
Imagine collaborative research on water conservation, glacier melt and climate resilience.
Imagine doctors jointly combating infectious diseases.
Imagine publishers translating each other’s literature.
Imagine trade unions exchanging experiences on labour rights.
Imagine women’s organisations working together against gender violence.
Imagine musicians, theatre groups and filmmakers collaborating without political interference.
These are not sentimental fantasies.
They are investments in peace.
Every friendship formed across the border weakens the politics of hatred.
Every collaborative project creates a constituency for dialogue.
Every exchange chips away at stereotypes that have accumulated over generations.
Technology offers unprecedented opportunities. Virtual classrooms, joint webinars, digital cultural festivals and collaborative research can continue even when official relations deteriorate. Young Indians and Pakistanis already discover one another through literature, music and social media despite political restrictions.
Governments should facilitate these interactions rather than fear them.
Civil society, however, must also assume a more demanding role.
It should not merely celebrate dialogue; it should scrutinise it. Peace processes require democratic accountability. Citizens’ groups should monitor commitments made by governments, encourage transparency wherever possible, challenge inflammatory rhetoric from political leaders and insist that dialogue continue even during moments of tension.
Civil society must become both partner and conscience.
In this sense, peace itself requires democratic oversight.
The future of India-Pakistan relations cannot remain hostage to election cycles or military calculations alone.
South Asia has spent nearly eighty years investing extraordinary financial and political resources in confrontation. Meanwhile, millions across both countries continue to struggle with inadequate education, fragile healthcare systems, unemployment, environmental degradation and widening social inequalities.
Imagine the possibilities if even a small proportion of the enormous resources devoted to perpetual hostility were redirected towards scientific cooperation, public health, education, renewable energy and climate adaptation.
The dividends would be measured not only in economic growth but also in human dignity.
Patriotism should never be confused with permanent enmity. Loving one’s country does not require despising another. National confidence is demonstrated not merely by military strength but by the courage to pursue dialogue without surrendering principles.
History has entrusted India and Pakistan with a difficult inheritance.
The next generation deserves something better.
The choice before us is stark. We can continue allowing politicians to weaponise fear and convert neighbours into perpetual enemies. Or we can reclaim the future by recognising that peace is not an act performed by governments but a culture nurtured by societies.
Borders may define states.
They should never define the limits of our humanity.
The next chapter in India-Pakistan relations must therefore be written not only by diplomats, politicians and generals, but by teachers, workers, farmers, students, artists, scientists, entrepreneurs, journalists and ordinary citizens.
Governments may open the door.
Only people can walk through it together.
And only an engaged civil society can ensure that, once opened, the door is never slammed shut again.
______________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at [email protected]
