Srinagar: For years, the political process between India and Pakistan had largely frozen, overshadowed by constitutional changes made in 2019 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), tensions on the Line of Control (LoC) and an almost complete shutdown of diplomatic ties between the two hostile neighbours.Last month, that silence between the countries briefly broke, not because New Delhi and Islamabad announced a breakthrough but because of speculation, reported by the media, that representatives from both countries met unofficially in Colombo and Bangkok.The excitement was short-lived, as the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) later clarified that the Indian delegation was at an annual South Asia Dialogue organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and not at a Track II dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad.But by then, the rumour had already achieved something that few developments could manage in recent years, particularly after the reading down of Article 370. It broke the silence surrounding the question of peace talks and prompted Kashmir’s political leaders, civil society members and peace advocates to once again publicly urge for dialogue between India and Pakistan.For Kashmiris, who have lived through decades of conflict, diplomacy is more than just foreign policy. It has often meant the possibility of silent borders, reopened roads, resumed trade and families divided by history finding ways to meet again.Within hours of the rumours, former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti renewed her appeal for sustained engagement. “There are rumours about ‘Track II’ diplomacy talks taking place in Sri Lanka and Thailand, which is a positive development. This ‘Track II’ diplomacy involves retired diplomats and army personnel from both India and Pakistan meeting and holding discussions,” Mufti told the media, adding, “Even the senior leadership of the RSS has endorsed the stance that dialogue should take place.”The rumours made Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq return to a familiar argument: “India and Pakistan carry special responsibility for regional peace. As one of India’s longest-serving leaders, Prime Minister Modi can revive the spirit of engagement. Dialogue remains the most reliable path to lasting solutions,” he said in a statement.A joint letter to un-freeze talksTheir appeals coincided with another major development that got media traction.A joint letter signed by 117 prominent Indians and Pakistanis urged prime ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif to restore frozen diplomatic ties, reopen travel and trade, address security concerns and begin structured dialogue on Jammu and Kashmir.Among the signatories were former Jammu and Kashmir chief ministers Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, former RAW chief A.S. Dulat, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha, former diplomat Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, former Union minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, former Pakistan foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri and other retired diplomats and civil society leaders.The appeal, however, found little support from the BJP, which maintained its long-held position that “terrorism and dialogue cannot go together”.Senior BJP leader and India Foundation president Ram Madhav rejected reports that he had participated in any Track II meeting. “Military and intelligence agencies often deploy a tactic called PSYOP – structured disinformation campaigns aimed at creating suspicion, confusion and discord among enemy ranks. Recent propaganda about a fictitious Track II dialogue between India and Pakistan at Colombo appears to be a classic example of PSYOP unleashed by interested parties,” Madhav wrote in the Indian Express.Yet, senior leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), parent organisation of the BJP, have struck a noticeably different tone by championing peace dialogue over the last few months.Also read: A Year After Pahalgam, the Dialogue Ball Still Remains in the Modi Govt’s CourtAfter returning from the United States, RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale asserted that communication channels with Pakistan should remain open. Later, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat publicly endorsed those remarks.The position marked an interesting moment for an organisation historically associated with a tougher approach towards Pakistan. L.K. Advani, on returning from his 2005 visit to Pakistan, faced a major backlash, largely from the RSS, for his praise of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He resigned as BJP president, though a patch-up with the Nagpur leadership followed.Senior journalist and peace activist Anuradha Bhasin said that international voices have influenced moments in the past, like Trump claiming credit for a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in 2025. “Something internationally is moving that allows voices favouring diplomacy to surface, but exact motives are hard to pin down,” Bhasin told The Wire.“One has to ask whether there is a tacit understanding that suits the current establishments on both sides, the military establishment in Pakistan and the Hindu right wing in India, to keep the Kashmir issue on the back burner. At the same time, we are hearing renewed calls for dialogue, which makes the current moment politically interesting,” she said.Dialogue holds symbolic weightTrack II diplomacy, by definition, brings together unofficial actors to explore solutions, reduce tensions and prepare the ground for formal negotiations. Whether or not Colombo was such a meeting point for discussion or dialogue became almost secondary in Kashmir. What mattered was that people were talking about dialogue again.File photo: Former Pakistani president late General Pervez Musharraf, left, meets former prime minister late Atal Bihari Vajpayee on July 15, 2001 in Agra for a summit. Behind them is former Defence Minister Jaswant Singh. Photo: AP/John McConnicoPolitical scientist and international relations expert Professor Noor Ahmad Baba believes the response seen in Kashmir reflected years of accumulated longing.“Kashmiri leaders have consistently been pleading for peace and dialogue. They believe the current atmosphere may be somewhat more favourable than before. After witnessing prolonged conflict, they probably felt this was the right time to raise their voices once again,” Prof Baba told The Wire.“The region is divided, and when the peace process was underway, there were cross-LoC travel links and greater people-to-people contact. Peace would improve trade, mobility and overall development,” he added. “Ultimately, this region requires peace for prosperity. India has the potential to become a great power, but that potential cannot be fully realised unless it enjoys peace with its neighbours,” Prof Baba said.For Bhasin, the symbolism itself carries political significance: “There are deep internal divisions across political and ideological lines. Kashmiris see India–Pakistan peace as essential for stability; recent conflict exposed regional vulnerabilities and showed there are no winners in modern warfare. Geopolitical shifts and threats make at least some diplomacy necessary. Yet, in Kashmir, symbolism often carries its own political weight.”She also argued that dialogue cannot exclude difficult subjects. “If terrorism is India’s principal concern, then that is precisely something that needs to be discussed. Terrorism does not disappear simply by refusing to talk about it. It does not exist in a vacuum either; alongside external factors, there are internal grievances that also need to be addressed,” she said.Former RAW chief A.S. Dulat remains cautious about expecting any immediate breakthrough. “Personally, I don’t think there is much appetite within the government at the moment to begin a dialogue with Pakistan,” Dulat told The Wire.He also warns against reading too much into the Colombo speculation. “I understand there was a meeting in Colombo involving Indian and Pakistani participants. Whether particular individuals attended or not, only those who were present can say. I believe the meeting itself did take place,” Dulat said. “It is true that many in Kashmir feel their voices are not being heard. But that does not mean they should stop trying. As Farooq Abdullah says, we should not give up the effort.”Drawing on his own experience with unofficial diplomacy, he says denials are hardly unusual. “The government can always deny these things because Track II meetings are unofficial. They are not government meetings. I have attended Track II dialogues for nearly fifteen years. These are meetings organised by third parties, and individuals participate if they choose to,” Dulat said.Also read: The Only Answer to Kashmir is Dialogue, Not Aggression, Says Former RAW ChiefFor O.P. Shah, the coordinator of the joint letter sent to Prime Minister Modi, the issue remains deeply personal for ordinary Kashmiris, though he has not mentioned Kashmir in his letter.“Whenever tensions arise, the people of Kashmir are the ones who suffer the most. I have personally witnessed this. If relations between India and Pakistan improve, people will benefit. There can be more trade, cultural and sporting exchanges, and people will be able to visit their relatives and friends. Anything that improves relations between India and Pakistan would be welcomed by most people, if not everyone,” Shah said.Shah believes confidence-building measures need not wait. “The appointment of high commissioners, issuing more visas so people can visit each other, and ensuring there is no violence from either side, resumption of trade, people-to-people dialogue and sporting and cultural exchanges are all steps that can be taken immediately,” he said.Kashmir’s hope for peaceFor a region that has spent decades living with the consequences of India-Pakistan hostility, the possibility of dialogue still carries emotional weight, not because it promises immediate solutions, but because it briefly revives the hope that talking may someday become possible again. Each public appeal for dialogue also allows regional parties to reaffirm a long-standing position that sustainable peace requires political engagement between the two neighbours.Rita Manchanda, co-chair of the Pak-India Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD) and a researcher and activist, said that refusing dialogue carries costs extending well beyond bilateral relations.“If India continues with the position that ‘terror and talks don’t go together’, it will make regional cooperation increasingly difficult. India already faces challenges in its neighbourhood, and strained relations with Pakistan further undermine regional stability and cooperation,” Manchanda told The Wire.She believes Kashmir cannot be viewed solely through a territorial lens. “Kashmir is fundamentally a political issue, not simply a territorial dispute. Any durable solution should involve the people of the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir. Ultimately, a trilateral dialogue would be important, although I do not think that is politically possible at present.”For her, the significance of the recent peace appeal lies in the public conversation it generated. “The important point is not whether the Prime Minister accepted the letter, but that it received widespread media attention. Even negative coverage helped create public awareness that there is once again a constituency advocating dialogue and normalisation.”Manchanda also believes that geopolitical realities are shifting. She does not believe that the Indian foreign policy assumption that Pakistan can simply be isolated is sustainable any longer. Pakistan has expanded its diplomatic engagement, particularly in West Asia, and has become part of emerging regional security arrangements. “Whether one agrees with Pakistan’s policies or not, the geopolitical landscape has changed – Pakistan has emerged as a major player while there is no place for India at the table. Its [India’s] strategic alignment with Israel has isolated it.”“There is now a rational imperative for improving relations with Pakistan. The old pattern of responding to every terrorist incident with military escalation has become increasingly difficult to sustain, particularly given the changing regional and international environment,” Manchanda said. In this she especially includes evidence of Pakistan-China military cooperation during Operation Sindoor.Despite political obstacles, she sees hope in younger generations. “The effort now is to rebuild the movement by bringing in a new generation through discussions on culture, politics and people’s concerns. The future cannot continue to be defined by permanent hostility,” Manchanda said.Bhasin, too, believes that governments alone cannot create the conditions necessary for dialogue. “The media also has a responsibility to present facts rather than amplify jingoism. A more balanced public discourse can gradually create political space for engagement.”“There is political space for a different approach, but it has to be consciously built. Public debate, media coverage and cultural engagement all have a role in making dialogue politically acceptable,” Bhasin said, while warning of the regional consequences of continued confrontation. She added, “If India and Pakistan remain locked in confrontation, South Asia risks becoming globally irrelevant while external powers increasingly shape the region’s future. None of the countries in the region can afford that outcome.”For now, there is little public evidence that New Delhi and Islamabad are preparing to resume formal dialogue. Official positions remain unchanged, diplomatic ties remain limited, and the political distance between the two governments persists.Yet the episode revealed something that statistics and official statements often miss. That for a few days, it reminded Kashmir that one of its oldest political demands never entirely disappeared.Junaid Dar is an independent journalist.