‘Peace can't be one-sided’, ‘forgotten Pahalgam’: BJP, oppn react to letter calling for India-Pak talks

Over 100 prominent individuals from India and Pakistan have issued a joint appeal urging their respective prime ministers to adopt concrete and enduring measures aimed at restoring peace, normalizing relations, and fostering dialogue between the two nations. The open letter, organized by the Center for Peace and Progress and led by its chairperson, O.P. Shah, includes 117 signatories—61 from India and the rest from Pakistan. Notable Indian figures include Farooq Abdullah, the head of the National Conference, Mehbooba Mufti, the leader of the People's Democratic Party (PDP), Manoj Jha from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Mani Shankar Aiyar of the Indian National Congress, Humayun Kabir from the All-Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference (AJUP), and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, the spiritual leader of Kashmir. The letter calls for a range of confidence-building initiatives, including the restoration of full diplomatic relations, the reinstatement of high commissioners in both capitals, and the resumption of regular visa services. It emphasizes that the combined populations of India and Pakistan constitute nearly one-fifth of the world's total, with a significant portion being young. The ongoing hostility, according to the letter, denies millions of youth opportunities for growth, prosperity, and security. The writers argue that a future defined by peace, development, and mutual cooperation would benefit both nations far more than continued distrust and confrontation.

The letter highlights the long-standing estrangement between the two countries, stating that it has impeded their collective potential and caused substantial social, economic, and human costs. It suggests that structured dialogue, particularly on unresolved issues, could pave the way for lasting peace. Among the signatories, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq emphasized that if even adversaries like the United States and Iran can engage in talks, then India and Pakistan should also consider sitting down at the negotiation table. He argued that friendship between the two nations is crucial for addressing longstanding disputes, especially regarding the Kashmir issue. Other notable signatories from India include Kashmir's chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, along with several members of the legislative assembly, such as Aga Muntazir Mehdi from the PDP and Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami from the Communist Party of India (Marxist). These individuals collectively advocate for a return to dialogue and cooperation, believing that sustained engagement remains the only viable solution to regional tensions.

Reactions to the open letter have varied significantly across political lines in India. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which holds power in the central government, expressed strong reservations about the initiative. BJP leader Gaurav Vallabh stated that peace cannot be one-sided and warned that allowing Pakistan-sponsored terrorism to continue unchecked would be tantamount to an act of war. He highlighted the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty as a symbol of the deep-seated mistrust between the two nations. Vallabh criticized the notion of pursuing peace without addressing the issue of terrorism, arguing that the Indian government has been unequivocal in its stance against any form of extremism or cross-border violence.

In contrast, the Indian National Congress, which is currently in opposition, took a nuanced approach. While acknowledging the importance of dialogue, Congress MP Manish Tiwari raised concerns about historical grievances, citing incidents such as the Baisaran massacre and the recent Pahalgam attack. He questioned the intent behind the push for normalization, suggesting that it might stem from external pressures rather than genuine reconciliation. Tiwari emphasized that India's repeated attempts at peace have often been met with Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorist activities, making it difficult to see the value in engaging with a nation that has historically sought to destabilize India. His comments reflect a broader skepticism within certain sections of Indian politics about the feasibility of meaningful dialogue with Pakistan.

Meanwhile, other political entities, such as the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), have shown support for Track II diplomacy—a non-official form of dialogue between civil society groups and experts. Manoj Kumar Jha, an RJD representative, suggested that such informal interactions could serve as a stepping stone toward more structured negotiations. However, the Indian government has maintained a firm stance that Track II meetings should not be seen as official dialogues. Government officials have reiterated that formal engagement with Pakistan is not possible unless the issue of terrorism is resolved. This position aligns with the broader sentiment that discussions on peace must be accompanied by clear commitments to counteract cross-border threats.

The situation remains complex, with differing perspectives on how to address the persistent tensions between India and Pakistan. While some advocate for renewed dialogue and confidence-building measures, others emphasize the need to prioritize national security and counter-terrorism efforts before considering any form of engagement. As the debate continues, the role of civil society in shaping public discourse and influencing policy decisions becomes increasingly significant. The outcome of these discussions will likely depend on whether both nations can find common ground on critical issues, including the resolution of territorial disputes and the prevention of terrorism.