ISTANBUL: As a fragile ceasefire continues to hold between Pakistan and India following recent hostilities, analysts are urging the two nuclear-armed neighbors to seize this opportunity for substantive dialogue aimed at resolving longstanding disputes over a range of issues, including Kashmir, water resources, and counterterrorism.
“It’s better now to focus on the next steps, which could be helpful in getting a dialogue going – a dialogue that is outside the public domain and behind closed doors,” political and strategic analyst Shuja Nawaz told Anadolu.
The recent crisis was sparked by an April 22 attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, where unidentified gunmen killed 26 people, mostly Indian tourists, in the town of Pahalgam.
The incident led to an exchange of blame and denials, eventually escalating to retaliatory airstrikes and drone attacks that pushed the two nations dangerously close to another major conflict. Tensions eased somewhat after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire on May 10, followed by an agreement between the Indian and Pakistani militaries on “confidence-building measures to reduce alertness levels,” according to an official statement from New Delhi.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif recently expressed his willingness to engage in peace talks with India, while Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar called for a comprehensive or “composite dialogue” aimed at resolving all outstanding issues between the neighbors.
India has maintained a firm stance on possible dialogue, with Premier Narendra Modi saying that any talks will revolve solely around counterterrorism and the status of Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
With international players including the US, Russia, China, and Gulf countries encouraging renewed dialogue, analysts emphasize that any meaningful talks must confront several critical and contentious issues.
Water resources
Following the Pahalgam attack, India unilaterally suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, a World Bank-brokered agreement from 1960 that governs the use of rivers flowing between the two countries. Pakistani officials maintain that India has no legal right to suspend the treaty unilaterally.
Elizabeth Threlkeld, director of the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center, emphasized the treaty’s importance, especially with it still being held in abeyance.
Threlkeld points out that, while India currently lacks infrastructure capable of significantly altering water flows into Pakistan, this could soon change, exacerbating tensions as water levels naturally decrease later in the year.
“The risk of any sort of manipulation of water levels becomes more acute then,” she warned.
Threlkeld further underscored the treaty’s complexities, noting it requires both political will and substantial technical and hydrological expertise to navigate.
“This is both a political issue between the two sides, but it’s also a longstanding dispute over the treaty itself, which at least the Indian side feels has become outdated and isn’t equipped to deal with some of the changes that have come in terms of population, but also with the impacts of climate change,” she explained.
Nawaz, a distinguished fellow with the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, echoed these concerns, pointing to climate change and environmental impacts as critical considerations. He emphasized that shrinking Himalayan glaciers would be affecting both countries and urged international involvement in addressing these shared climate challenges.
“The developed countries of the world, and especially the US, have a responsibility to help ameliorate the effects of climate change that has, among other things, produced the decline of Himalayan glaciers. So, they have a duty to help India and Pakistan deal with their impending water shortages,” he said.
Moreover, Nawaz believes future discussions must address shared underground water resources, specifically aquifers extending beneath both countries.
“It is in the interest of both countries that those aquifers that have been damaged because of overuse of tube wells – leading to waterlogging, salinity and the dropping of the water table – are recharged so that there is water that both countries can access from underground,” he said.
“When they don’t have the rivers, when the glaciers dry up, that’s the water that they will have to live by, so that’s going to be a very critical part of any discussion on water resources.”
Kashmir dispute
The disputed Kashmir region continues to dominate any prospective talks between the two nations.
Last week, India reiterated its stance that any issues related to Kashmir remain bilateral, after Trump offered American mediation, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal describing it as a “longstanding national position.”
Pakistan welcomed Trump’s offer but reaffirmed that a lasting solution must align with UN Security Council resolutions and “ensure the realization of the fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people, including their inalienable right to self-determination.”
“I think the Kashmiri people on both sides should be allowed to have a referendum to voice their desires,” Nawaz suggested, highlighting the need for Kashmiri voices to be central to any settlement.
Subir Sinha, director of the SOAS South Asia Institute, also called for the inclusion of Kashmiri perspectives, noting the militarization of the region and policies that global watchdogs say violate human rights.
Threlkeld added a broader geopolitical angle, emphasizing China’s involvement due to its territorial claims in Kashmir.
“Let’s not forget that Kashmir is a tripartite dispute,” she said, stressing that China’s perspective and potential role further complicate the situation.
Counterterrorism
Counterterrorism cooperation remains another contentious issue. India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of backing cross-border terrorism, allegations Islamabad strongly denies.
Following the Pahalgam attack, India claimed Pakistani involvement, prompting immediate denial from Islamabad, which instead called for a neutral investigation.
Sinha believes India prioritizes the issue of terrorism, expecting Pakistan to take concrete measures: “They’ve said they want Pakistan to recognize their concerns regarding the terror attacks.”
In past cases, he pointed out, “the Indians think that they have given enough evidence to Pakistan and that the Pakistani side has not acted.”
“The Pakistani side seems to think that they have been given bad evidence or incomplete evidence,” he added.
Trade and travel
As bilateral trade between India and Pakistan remains minimal, experts suggest an expansion in economic and travel links could significantly reduce tensions.
Sinha recalled earlier periods before 2014 when dialogue included trade extensively, while Nawaz emphasized that both countries recognize the potential economic and social benefits of improved trade relations.
“A number of scholars have suggested that India-Pakistan trade could rise from next to nothing to somewhere close to $100 billion … It would rival India’s trade with China, it would rival India’s trade with the US,” Nawaz said.
He also highlighted how regional interconnectivity is critical, offering mutual benefits such as access to affordable energy from Central Asia.
“India needs energy and can get it from countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, directly – cheap energy, clean energy,” he added, advocating practical cooperation as a path to stability. ( Courtesy : Anadolu News Agency)
