- By CH V Prabhakar Rao, Senior Journalist
For more than seven decades, India–Pakistan relations have been shaped by wars, cross-border terrorism, military st-offs and recurring diplomatic crises. Following the 2019 Pulwama terror attack, formal bilateral engagement virtually came to a halt, with New Delhi consistently maintaining that “terror and talks cannot go together.”
Yet, over the past year, a quieter and less visible diplomatic process appears to have gained momentum.
According to several media reports, Indian and Pakistani representatives have participated in a series of unofficial Track-1.5 and Track-2 dialogues alongside conferences organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a London-based strategic affairs think tank. While such engagements are not unprecedented, the reported frequency of these meetings has attracted considerable attention within diplomatic and political circles.
The discussions have coincided with overseas engagements by former BJP National General Secretary Ram Madhav, who heads the India Foundation, and senior RSS functionary Dattatreya Hosabale. In a recent interview with PTI, Hosabale argued that while India should remain uncompromising on terrorism, channels for social and cultural engagement between the people of India and Pakistan should not be completely closed. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat subsequently echoed the view that dialogue should not be rejected outright.
These statements have fuelled speculation over whether the RSS and BJP are reassessing their long-held approach towards Pakistan or merely recognising the practical realities of diplomacy.
Is Washington influencing the equation?
Another question being debated in strategic circles is whether the evolving discourse has been influenced by the United States.
The speculation gained traction after Operation Sindoor, during which US President Donald Trump claimed that Washington had played a role in preventing further escalation between India and Pakistan. Subsequent developments, including reports of growing US engagement with Pakistan and Islamabad’s diplomatic role during the Iran-US ceasefire efforts, have prompted discussions on whether Washington is encouraging renewed India-Pakistan engagement.
However, there is no publicly available evidence to establish that the reported Track-2 dialogues were initiated or directed by the United States. The debate, therefore, remains largely speculative.
Track-1.5 and Track-2: What do they mean?
The reported meetings have brought renewed attention to the role of Track-1.5 and Track-2 diplomacy.
Unlike formal government negotiations, these dialogues involve former diplomats, retired military officers, strategic affairs experts, academics and representatives of think tanks. Although participants do not negotiate on behalf of their governments, such forums often serve as platforms for exchanging ideas, reducing misunderstandings and exploring possible policy options.
Such unofficial diplomatic channels have historically been used in several international conflicts, including those involving the United States, China, Iran and the Korean Peninsula.
A series of meetings over the past year
The current round of discussions reportedly began with an IISS Track-1.5 meeting in London in July last year, where former diplomats and security experts from both countries are said to have participated. Another reported engagement took place in Muscat, Oman, during the Southern Asia Security Conference in October, bringing together retired officials and strategic experts from India and Pakistan.
In December, Thailand reportedly hosted another Track-2 dialogue involving former parliamentarians, diplomats and academics. Although it was not organised by the IISS, it was seen as part of the broader unofficial engagement process.
A further Track-2 meeting was reportedly held in Doha, Qatar, in February this year under the auspices of a British think tank.
The most widely discussed meeting emerged during the IISS South Asia Dialogue in Colombo in June. Media reports suggested that Indian and Pakistani delegates held informal interactions on the sidelines of the conference. Several prominent names from both countries appeared in these reports. However, some individuals denied participating, while the IISS did not release an official list of participants.
Government distances itself
Following media reports on these meetings, the Government of India clarified that they were not official engagements and that no government representatives had participated on behalf of New Delhi.
This clarification has reinforced the distinction between unofficial strategic dialogues and formal diplomatic negotiations. Nevertheless, questions remain about whether such forums merely facilitate academic exchanges or also contribute to shaping future policy thinking.
Changing rhetoric?
The remarks by RSS leaders have added another dimension to the debate. Hosabale’s observation that dialogue should not be entirely abandoned despite India’s uncompromising stand on terrorism, followed by similar comments from Mohan Bhagwat, has been interpreted differently by different observers.
Some see these statements as reflecting diplomatic maturity, recognising that communication channels often remain open even between adversarial states. Others view them as signalling a subtle shift from the political messaging traditionally associated with the BJP and the RSS on Pakistan.
Whether these remarks represent a policy evolution or simply acknowledge established diplomatic practice remains open to interpretation.
Diplomacy often operates on parallel tracks
Strategic experts argue that Track-2 diplomacy should not be confused with official negotiations. Rather, it functions as a complementary mechanism, particularly during periods when formal dialogue is suspended.Such engagements can help manage crises, improve mutual understanding and reduce the risk of miscalculation, especially between two nuclear-armed neighbours facing persistent security challenges.
The larger question
The developments have revived a broader debate.
Can a government maintain a firm public position against terrorism while allowing unofficial channels of communication to continue? Or does such engagement reflect the dual-track nature of international diplomacy, where public postures and private conversations often coexist?
At present, the available evidence indicates that the reported meetings under the IISS and other international think tanks were unofficial interactions rather than government-sponsored negotiations.
At the same time, the growing relevance of such forums reflects the strategic importance attached to regional stability, nuclear risk management and conflict prevention in South Asia.
Whether these Track-1.5 and Track-2 dialogues eventually pave the way for formal diplomatic engagement, or remain limited to unofficial exchanges among experts, will depend on future political developments.
For now, one conclusion appears evident: despite prolonged political tensions and the absence of formal bilateral dialogue, unofficial diplomatic engagement between India and Pakistan remains very much alive.
———