The four-day military conflict between India and Pakistan marked their sixth crisis in 25 years. Each crisis has been increasingly perilous, further straining their already troubled relations. Resuming diplomatic engagement has proven challenging, often exacerbating the stalemate. It was only after the military standoff in 2001-2002 that the two countries were able to initiate a genuine peace process through the 'composite' dialogue, which had its foundations laid as early as 1997.
The 'composite' dialogue was based on eight key issues: Kashmir, peace and security (including confidence-building measures), terrorism, Siachen, Sir Creek, trade and economic cooperation, water projects, and fostering friendly exchanges. While formal discussions took place on these matters, a promising back channel emerged during the Pervaiz Musharraf-Manmohan Singh era (2004-2007) that focused on negotiating the Kashmir issue. This effort led to a framework for an agreement on the long-standing conflict that has divided the two nations—Kashmir. Although both parties framed it as an interim agreement, it marked the most significant breakthrough in their relations in decades. Unfortunately, the deal never materialized and fell victim to political turmoil in Pakistan in 2008. It represented a missed opportunity but also highlighted the potential outcomes of meaningful negotiations.
Subsequent administrations in both countries, however, displayed little interest in continuing that approach. Serious negotiations regarding Kashmir did not take place afterward. The rise of Narendra Modi’s hard-line government in 2014 further complicated matters. Dialogue on various issues was repeatedly disrupted, and the composite dialogue has not resumed since 2012. However, backchannel communications in 2020, following the crisis in 2019, ultimately led both nations to reaffirm their commitment in February 2021 to uphold a ceasefire along the Line of Control, in accordance with a 2003 agreement.
However, that behind-the-scenes discussion did not lead to any progress on other issues or improve the relationship. In fact, relations had deteriorated in August 2019 when India unlawfully annexed, divided, and integrated the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union, violating UN Security Council resolutions. This move, coupled with a series of repressive measures, led Pakistan to suspend trade and downgrade diplomatic relations. India's assertion that the Kashmir "problem" had been "resolved" and that there was nothing left to negotiate with Pakistan posed a significant barrier to resuming dialogue. Moreover, New Delhi showed little interest in diplomatic re-engagement, believing that the lack of communication was more detrimental to Pakistan than to itself.
The crisis between India and Pakistan erupted on May 7 against a tense backdrop, following India's attack on Pakistan in response to the Pahalgam terrorist incident, which prompted a retaliatory strike from Pakistan. This marked the first instance of both nations launching missile and airstrikes on each other's territory, utilizing advanced technology and weaponry, including armed drones. It was a significant escalation, bringing them closer to all-out war since both countries became nuclear powers.
US diplomatic efforts played a crucial role in de-escalating the situation and facilitating a ceasefire between the two nations. Currently, an uneasy truce exists, with a fragile ceasefire being implemented in stages. Confidence-building measures are underway to lower the "level of alertness." However, a return to "normalcy" is not anticipated in the near future, and immediate talks seem unlikely, especially with Prime Minister Modi stating that dialogue and terrorism cannot coexist.
In this context, three potential scenarios can be envisioned for the near future. The first scenario is the most unstable, characterized by an ongoing war of words that could lead to a further escalation of tensions. In this hostile standoff, diplomatic efforts remain stalled, with no dialogue or even informal communication taking place. Accusations of ceasefire violations intensify, increasing the likelihood of a new crisis, particularly if another terrorist incident occurs—something Prime Minister Modi indicated would prompt a military response from India in his post-ceasefire address. Meanwhile, U.S. interest diminishes as Washington redirects its attention to other conflicts and issues. This scenario represents the highest level of danger and volatility.
The second scenario would mirror the situation before May 2025, characterized by a state of no war and no peace. In this context, diplomatic interactions are minimal, limited to practical matters, with occasional technical discussions between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries. Diplomatic representation remains reduced, and tensions persist at a relatively low intensity. The ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) largely holds, and military forces are not kept on high alert. However, a return to the previous status quo is unlikely, primarily because, although military confrontations have ceased, India has not reversed its coercive diplomatic measures. The most significant of these is the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty.
The most optimistic yet unlikely scenario involves the resumption of formal dialogue between the two countries, even if it doesn't happen right away. In this scenario, both nations would adopt a problem-solving mindset to address their disputes and seek common ground to resolve their differences. They would also aim to intentionally reduce tensions. Productive dialogue could pave the way for normalizing various aspects of their relationship, even as they continue to disagree on more sensitive or complex issues. Additionally, a mechanism would be established to manage tensions and prevent them from escalating into a crisis. This approach is particularly important given the region's nuclearization and the unstable strategic dynamics between the two adversaries, which heighten the risk of miscalculation in an unpredictable deterrence environment. Ultimately, this is the only framework that could lead to lasting peace. However, despite the logic behind this scenario, the likelihood of it occurring in the short term is virtually nonexistent.
