The long-standing disputes in South Asia, especially the India-Pakistan standoff, have been hard to solve using traditional methods. Diplomacy, which is commonly hailed as the art of possibility, has failed in this region not because of the lack of tools, but because of a deliberate constriction of vision, because of insistence on bilateralism at a time when it no longer reflects the reality of regional relationships. The inability of India to embrace multilateralism especially in the sensitive matters such as Kashmir has made diplomacy a procedural dead end. When an actor as powerful as one of the regions does not leave room to common frameworks, it is not only bilateral relations that are affected, but regional stability becomes a prisoner of a monologue.
Such insistence on bilateralism may seem principled at first sight, as the defense of sovereignty and non-interference. However, behind that pose is a more fundamental unease with collaborative responsibility. In the very essence of multilateralism, the competing narratives are in the process of dialogue and are subject to examination. This may be the avoidance of scrutiny. And were wider forums really to be considered, and not only at the United Nations or in regional groupings but also in the intervention of third parties, then the moral and political issues that have so long remained unanswered would be put into a keener light. The issues of rights, autonomy, and the lived experiences of the people in the conflict areas cannot be brushed off as an internal issue to be dealt with in the multilateral engagement.
The case of the Trump-era diplomatic interventions, however abnormal, is a telling one. When the situation in the region was becoming increasingly tense, backchannel activities and third-party mediation helped to de-escalate the conflict, even to conclude a temporary ceasefire agreement. Although the dynamics of such diplomacy were hardly perfect, and the long-term effects modest, it demonstrated that peace was not a far-fetched idea. The fact that India refused to recognize this episode and to develop it further showed the unwillingness to accept that dialogue, although successful, is legitimate when it is initiated by the outside party. That refusal is an indication of the desire to stick to the status quo rather than to the unknown compromise, and such a strategy is not beneficial to the regional peace and the long-term strategic interests of India itself.
In fact, the regional stance of India seems to be less of establishing peace, but rather of dictating the rules of engagement. Its reluctance to support South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) efforts, its unwillingness to resume composite dialogue processes, and its rejection of any neutral third party mediation all indicate a larger unease with any process over which it does not have full control. However, performance is not diplomacy, it is negotiation. And negotiation must require an ability to listen, not to talk. With regional partners trying to find alternative avenues of collaboration, either in new multilateral forums or bilateral convergence beyond the Indian orbit, India is increasingly becoming a victim of its own making; of its own diplomatic seclusion.
The reason why this posture is especially troubling is that it weakens the prospects of true peacebuilding when South Asia is at several crossroads, climate vulnerability, economic disintegration, and increasing militarization. All these issues cannot be substantially dealt with in bilateral frameworks. They demand organization, confidence and readiness to go beyond nationalist certainties.
Sovereignty does count, to be sure. Nobody is to be forced into agreements that will undermine its sovereignty. Sovereignty may not have to be synonymous with silence. Multilateral engagement is not about sacrifice of national interest but about the understanding that common futures are based on common platforms. In the case of India, it is high time that it reconsiders its doctrine of diplomacy. Not to engage is not a strength, it is a lost opportunity. Peace, when it is to be enduring, will not be made by declarations, but by dialogue that is open, inclusive and multilateral in spirit and structure.
