EDITORIAL: The recent agreement between Pakistan and India to pull back troops from forward positions along the Line of Control is a welcome, if cautious, development. This is not just another headline about ceasefires brokered and broken; this time the quiet work behind the scenes suggests a serious effort to avoid slipping back into open conflict. But as much as the physical withdrawal of troops matters, it must be paired with sustained, continuous engagement — no matter how fraught, indirect, or fragile the dialogue may be.
The timing and context could not be more critical. Just weeks ago, the subcontinent saw a dangerously escalated conflict, with missile strikes, drones, and aerial combat that rattled nerves from Islamabad to New Delhi — and beyond.
The US-brokered ceasefire, agreed on May 10, was a stark reminder that neither side can afford the consequences of unchecked escalation, especially when nuclear weapons hover in the background.
Yet ceasefires are fragile if they exist only on paper or through sporadic announcements. This latest troop withdrawal, quietly agreed upon by the directors general of military operations on both sides, must be seen as more than a tactical repositioning. It is an opportunity — and a necessity — to keep channels open.
One cannot overstate the importance of continuous communication even in tense geopolitical standoffs. History offers ample lessons. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union stood as sworn enemies, locked in ideological, military, and nuclear rivalry for decades.
Yet, despite the hostility and competition, both powers maintained back-channel communications, diplomatic contacts, and arms control talks. This persistent engagement proved essential to avoiding miscalculations that could have led to nuclear catastrophe. The famous “hotline” between Washington and Moscow was not just symbolic; it was a lifeline.
Similarly, Pakistan and India face a complex web of unresolved issues — Kashmir foremost among them — that cannot be wished away. Political rhetoric in New Delhi may remain aggressive, with references to “probation” and paused operations, but the Indian military’s willingness to pull back troops suggests a recognition of the high cost of escalation. Pakistan’s stance is clear too: peace is preferred, but it will not be mistaken for weakness.
This duality — a desire for peace coupled with firm resolve — must underpin future interactions. The delicate task now is to transform military-level disengagement into a foundation for broader dialogue. While direct political talks remain stalled or limited, indirect and back-channel communications can sustain momentum and build trust incrementally. This could mean working-level negotiations on ceasefire management, confidence-building measures, and humanitarian concerns. It may also require third-party facilitation — as seen with the US role in brokering the recent ceasefire.
Critically, engagement is not a one-off event but a continuous process. The worst outcome would be to retreat into silence or allow hostile rhetoric to dominate public discourse, undermining fragile progress. Both sides must resist the temptation to use these pauses merely as opportunities to regroup militarily or score political points domestically. The real test will be consistent, transparent efforts to manage conflict risks and explore avenues for eventual political resolution.
The international community also has a role. Global capitals reacted sharply to the May flare-up, underscoring the broader risks of regional instability. Sustained diplomatic pressure and support for dialogue, rather than short-lived ceasefires, are essential. The world’s eyes remain on this volatile region, not only because of the nuclear dimension but because lasting peace here would be a stabilising force in South Asia.
Ultimately, the recent troop withdrawal is a positive sign — a small but significant step away from the brink. But it is not a destination. For Pakistan and India, the path to peace is long and uncertain. It demands patience, pragmatism, and above all, unrelenting communication. Like the Cold War rivals before them, they must keep talking — even when it is difficult — to prevent conflict from spiraling again.
If silence is allowed to fill the void, the peace gained this May will prove only temporary. The cost of that silence could be measured in lives lost, economies shattered, and the shadow of nuclear catastrophe looming once more.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed.