OPINION: A perspective beyond endless blame game

When a bomb explodes in Delhi or Islamabad, the script rarely changes. Within hours, both nations issue condemnations — followed quickly by accusations. Each blames the other, tempers flare across newsrooms, and calls for revenge dominate prime time. Soon after, diplomats retreat behind their national narratives and another opportunity for peace dies before it even begins.

Last week’s twin tragedies — one at near Delhi Fort and another outside Islamabad’s District Judicial Complex — have again reopened old wounds and familiar suspicions. Dozens of innocent lives were lost, yet neither side seems ready to pause and ask the more difficult question: why does this pattern repeat itself so predictably?

For over seven decades, Pakistan and India have remained locked in an adversarial embrace — born of Partition, hardened by wars, and perpetuated by mistrust. Whenever an act of terrorism occurs on either side, the reflex is accusation rather than investigation. Evidence becomes secondary to narrative, and public anger replaces sober analysis. The real cost: peace held hostage.

For a change, this time, the pattern from India is different. In the case of the Delhi Fort incident, India is exercising restraint in finger pointing. It is instead systematically collecting evidence and taking time to come up with a credible narrative, and is perhaps building a better case to present to the global audience.

The narrative of Pahalgam incident at Kashmir and Operation Sindoor, almost spontaneously unleashed by India, did not go well for India to put Pakistan in the dock. India got burnt in the process. There were no takers around the globe to buy the narrative devoid of credible evidence. India has learnt well from its diplomatic and military debacle and has simultaneously recognised that its economic rise and global standing on account of that is not good enough to throw its weight around in global diplomacy. It imagined a straight walkover. In fact, in the recent episode Pakistan well-matched, if not surpassed, India in the arena of global diplomacy and politics in spite of its economic challenges and political instability.

Looking beyond hostility, there is a perspective worth considering: ‘What real peace between Pakistan and India could look like?’

Peace between Pakistan and India has long been a headline dream and a political taboo. Each time the word “dialogue” is uttered, hardliners on both sides warn of betrayal, while moderates grow weary of disappointment. Yet after decades of tension and terrorism, the simple truth remains: neither nation can afford perpetual enmity.

If hostility has only bred mistrust, perhaps it is time to ask — what would genuine peace actually look like? Not as a slogan or summit photo, but as a practical roadmap for two neighbours who share history, borders, and destiny.

The bar needs to be kept low — ‘A pragmatic peace, not a perfect one’.

Peace does not mean friendship without friction. It means managing differences without violence. For Pakistan and India, a realistic peace would start not with sweeping settlements but structured coexistence — small, verifiable steps that build trust brick by brick.

This begins with sustained dialogue insulated from political mood swings. The process should be institutional rather than personality-driven: a joint peace secretariat that continues talking even during crises. The 2003–2007 back-channel mechanism, which nearly delivered progress on Kashmir, proved that consistent engagement can overcome entrenched hostility. The collapse of talks since 2016 shows what happens when politics overrides principles.

Trade is the easiest and most powerful instrument of peace. South Asia remains the world’s least economically integrated region; bilateral trade is a mere fraction of its potential. Restoring and expanding cross-border trade routes — from Wagah to Khokhrapar and the Kartarpur corridor — would reconnect broken markets and families alike.

For Pakistan, access to India’s vast market could revive its struggling industries and lower import costs. For India, transit through Pakistan into Central Asia would cut logistics expenses and open energy corridors. Commerce builds stakeholders in peace; tariffs and suspicion build barriers.

Terrorism, cyber propaganda, and climate disasters do not stop at borders. Both countries face rising extremism, disinformation, and environmental stress. A framework for joint crisis management — intelligence sharing, border coordination, and rapid-response communication — could prevent attacks that extremists time to derail peace.

This does not require trust overnight; it requires protocols. Even adversaries maintain communication to prevent miscalculation. A revived hotline between national security advisers could serve as the first firewall against escalation.

Important and most sustainable is the human dimension.

Peace is not made by diplomats alone — it is lived by people. Thousands of divided families, pilgrims, artists, and students have paid the emotional cost of politics. Visa liberalization for journalists, academics, and cultural exchanges could reopen channels of empathy that no treaty can replace.

The Kartarpur Corridor demonstrated that people-to-people initiatives can succeed even in tense times. Similar humanitarian corridors for medical patients, students, and religious visitors could humanize relations and undercut propaganda.

Kashmir remains the core dispute and the most delicate one. A lasting peace cannot ignore it, but it can approach it differently. The emphasis should shift from sovereignty to solvability — improving lives on both sides of the Line of Control while working for a sustainable and permanent solution.

Climate change may succeed where politics fails. Both nations share rivers, monsoons, and mountains; floods and droughts ignore flags. Joint disaster-response mechanisms and early-warning systems could protect millions. Regional collaboration on renewable energy — solar, hydro, wind — could reduce dependence on imported fuels and build shared infrastructure.

Similarly, connectivity projects under BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) and regional transit frameworks can integrate Pakistan, India, and Central Asia economically. Once nations trade electricity, water, and goods, the appetite for war fades.

The hardest reform is of the mind and changing the narrative. India has to step down from its mindset of regional hegemony and its superiority on the strength of its economic rise. Both Pakistan and India have to work as equal stakeholders on the regional chessboard. Both nations must invest in a new narrative — one that sees peace not as appeasement but as strength.

Pakistan and India now face many similar realities: climate stress, poverty and a restless younger generation that demands opportunity, not animosity.

Real peace will not arrive through one handshake, nor vanish with one provocation. It will come quietly, through steady engagement and the conviction that the prosperity of one is not the peril of the other.

History offers examples. France and Germany, once bitter enemies, became partners through deliberate reconciliation after World War II. Southeast Asia built ASEAN out of mistrust and wars, and today enjoys stability and growth. South Asia, too, can change its narrative — if its leaders could imagine peace as a political asset rather than a weakness.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025