Track dialogue: India should avoid talks with Pakistan Raksha Anirveda 07 Jul 2026
Article Read Time
Track dialogue: India should avoid talks with Pakistan Raksha Anirveda 07 Jul 2026
The Pak Express Tribune last week published a column mentioning that India and Pakistan had engaged in a Track 1.5 dialogue involving former diplomats, retired military officials and politicians. They claimed it was held on the sidelines of the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ (IISS) annual South Asia Dialogue in Colombo. The IISS is a think tank based in London which covers dialogues in Asia. The Indian government denied these reports.
The Pak media report mentioned that RSS leader, Ram Madhav, former army chief, General MM Naravane and former diplomat Ruchi Ghanashyam participated in the dialogue. From Pakistan’s side it claimed were former senator Sherry Rehman, retired Major General Isfandiyar Ali Khan Pataudi and serving diplomat Sajjad Haider Khan. The report added that US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Paul Kapur, was also present.
Ram Madhav subsequently tweeted, ‘Totally wrong portrayal. It was not any track 2 dialogue. I did not attend the 2-day dialogue. I was invited to speak at one session which I did and left. Complete spin to a non-story.’ There has been no comment of acceptance or denial from General Naravane or Ruchi Ghanashyam. This implies that while Ram Madhav may not have participated, the others could have.
The Indian Foreign Secretary, Vikram Misri, mentioned, ‘dozens of these kinds of events take place in dozens of places around the world on a whole variety of subjects. So, there is nothing new, nothing special about these events. These are private events organised by private parties.’ He added ‘there is no official participation, no official support or involvement in these visits. We really take no cognisance of these events; they don’t hold much value as far as we are concerned.’
Track dialogues come at different levels. Track 1 diplomacy involves government officials including heads of state, diplomats and international organizations. These are official dialogues between states. Track 1.5 is a hybrid process where official and unofficial members participate. Track 2 is unofficial and non-government dialogue. Track 3 is interaction by NGOs and citizens to foster long-term relations.
It should be remembered that recently there were comments by those stated to be involved in this dialogue on re-igniting Indo-Pak talks. RSS General Secretary, Dattatreya Hosabale, had said in May, ‘If Pakistan is like a pinprick trying to create incidents like Pulwama etc, we have to answer appropriately according to the situation because security and self-respect of the country and nation have to be protected,’ adding, ‘But at the same time, we should not close doors. We should always be ready to engage in dialogue.’ His comments came soon after his return from a visit to the US, leading to the Congress accusing the RSS of toeing the US line.
The RSS Chief, Mohan Bhagwat backed him by mentioning, ‘the doors of dialogue need to be kept open.’ Naravane followed suit and added, ‘Common man has nothing to do with politics. When there is friendship between the two people, there will also be friendship between the two nations,’ adding, ‘It is the right thing. People-to-people contact is important.’ Defending Track II diplomacy he added, ‘Even our people should know that those staying across the border are not sworn enemies.’ His backing of dialogue with Pak, despite being a former army chief, was questioned.
It is possible that these comments were aimed at testing waters at the national level for launching unofficial diplomacy. The reaction on social media indicated that the country was unwilling to engage Pakistan in talks, especially as it continued to support terrorism in J and K. It could also be that since there was vehement opposition to suggestions by Hosabale and Naravane, the dialogue was not referred to as formal and backed by the government, though it may have been apprised about it.
There were also media reports emanating from Pakistan mentioning that discussions in this dialogue focused on India’s willingness to restore the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in lieu of Pakistan lifting its air space restrictions. This was also denied by the Indian government, which insists that the IWT will remain suspended and India has no plans to change this status, despite air space being blocked. India continues to insist that ‘blood and water’ as also ‘talks and terror’ cannot go simultaneously.
There are multiple events organized by different forums which bring India and Pakistani participants on a common platform, the most prominent one being the Shangri La dialogue in Singapore. Communication and interaction at these events do not indicate any formal dialogue, unless backed by the government. On the contrary, India-China Track 2 diplomacy is a regular feature involving retired military officials, diplomats and think tank analysts.
While with China, backchannel talks have proved helpful in restoring confidence along the LAC, despite their support to Pakistan, it is unlikely to be the same with Islamabad. The rhetoric and accusations flowing from Pakistan, increasing since Pakistan came on the global stage in attempting to resolve the US-Iran conflict, would make any dialogue, even at lower Track levels meaningless. Nothing would emerge nor would it reduce tensions.
India always engages with the government in power in Islamabad, while authority and decision-making rests with Rawalpindi. While the polity seeks peace with India, hoping to contain the rising power of their army, Rawalpindi will do anything to derail the process and keep enmity ongoing. For the Pak army, India as a declared enemy essential for its survival. Now that it is in a bind, managing multiple uprisings, amid a financial crisis, talking to it would only add to its confidence that India seeks peace. It would link the same to its narrative on Kashmir.
India is also planning to display video and audio recordings at the forthcoming meeting of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force), highlighting Pakistan’s involvement in supporting terrorism in India. The intent is to place Pakistan back on the Grey List, from which it exited in 2022. In such a scenario, India should not engage in any Track dialogue with Pakistan. If it does, then the advantage shifts to Pakistan. To convey firm messages on terrorist activities and Indian response to any misadventures, there are multiple channels including DGMO Hot Lines as also nations friendly to both, including those in the Middle East and the US.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army