The India-Pakistan ceasefire that has held since last month must be protected and built upon through transparent communication, responsible journalism, and citizen-to-citizen engagement, said Rajendra Mulmi, Regional Director of Asia for Search for Common Ground (SFCG). While it is too early to discuss a long-term resolution to longstanding conflicts between the two countries, there are many ways that stakeholders can help manage the Indo-Pakistani relationship and leverage local knowledge to avoid future violence.
May’s confrontation between the subcontinent’s nuclear powers was triggered by an April 22 militant attack that killed 26 civilians in the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir. The attack was followed by weeks of tension, with hostilities escalating on May 7 and leading to four days of air strikes and drone attacks across the border. Finally, negotiations mediated by the United States resulted in a ceasefire on May 10.
Despite continued tension and mutual accusations of violations, the uneasy peace has held for almost a month. Still, the Indo-Pakistani border remains closed, and both countries continue to deny visa applications from the other side.
Peace News Network spoke with Mulmi on May 13, a few days after the ceasefire began. He said that the root cause of the India-Pakistan conflict remains the territory of Kashmir. The Muslim-majority region, which lies along the northernmost portion of the India-Pakistan border, has been divided between both countries since partition in 1947, with China also controlling a small portion of the territory. Relations over the area were inflamed further in 2019, when the Indian government revoked Kashmir’s status as a federal state, putting it under Delhi’s direct control. Mulmi said that both India and Pakistan have used Kashmir as a staging ground for proxy conflicts, supporting militants opposed to their geopolitical rival.
Mulmi noted that despite the recurring issue of Kashmir, the May conflict also had several novel characteristics, such as the central role of media disinformation and inflammatory coverage. As hostilities progressed, misleading information and even deepfake videos of both countries’ leaders spread across social media and television.
“Ethno-religious nationalistic interests have been using media and the kind of nationalist, populist rhetoric that you see being amplified by the media in both the countries,” he said. “It further exacerbates the publics’ hostility against each other.” While the spread of disinformation is not unique to the subcontinent, Mulmi added, market incentives and competition for audiences have encouraged Indian and Pakistani media to appeal to an increasingly nationalistic public opinion.
Water, Mulmi said, has also emerged as a distinctive aspect of the most recent hostilities. India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty – a 1960 agreement that allows water from the Indus River and its tributaries to flow into Pakistan – the day after the Pahalgam attack. According to him, there is a risk of river use becoming a trigger for future confrontations. “For Pakistan, as a downstream country… for suddenly that to be stopped even feels like the next big driver of the conflict could be water,” he said.
According to Mulmi, it is premature to think of this ceasefire as the first step towards long-term peace, especially given the overlapping territorial claims. “In many parts of the world,” he said, “the conflicts that have transcended across various generations have to do with a fight over land.” He added that there is no simple answer to resolving the longstanding conflict, and that stakeholders should build confidence over the long term by addressing less divisive issues, making slow progress towards future resolution and reconciliation.
Mulmi placed a strong emphasis on keeping lines of communication open to preserve the truce and avoid future violence. He called for “Very open communication and trying to keep all the channels of communication open, both formal, [and] informal diplomatic backchannels.” Reporting on the negotiations that resulted in the May 10 ceasefire suggests that a series of conversations between India and Pakistan’s respective military operations chiefs played a key role in securing a breakthrough.
There is also, Mulmi said, a long history of people-to people peacebuilding across the border, which has included cultural exchanges, academic and youth contact, and sports diplomacy. Two particularly successful groups, he added. are Aaghaz-e-Dosti, an Indo-Pakistani initiative that has focused on enhancing the relationship between the two peoples and promoting understanding, and the Pakistan-India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy.
Mulmi also suggested that peacebuilders in India and Pakistan develop early warning systems for conflict, which could help organize diplomatic and peacebuilding interventions. He said that this would make local communities into “frontline responders,” tracking context-specific information that might help predict episodes of violence. As SFCG’s former Country Director in Nigeria, he said that increased demand for products associated with communal violence, such as machetes or kerosene, can be a proxy for impending violence, along with the sudden presence of groups of unidentified individuals in villages.
These indicators, he warned, might not be relevant to India and Pakistan, which is precisely why the development of early warning systems against violence requires local contextual understanding. “How do we develop that intelligence ourselves and how do you … see, analyze, make meaning and respond?” he said.
Mulmi also noted the importance of mutual contact and cross-border movement in building citizen-to-citizen trust. Restoring visas cancelled during the May hostilities and allowing cross-national families to reunite, he said, would help restore normalcy and build understanding.
The two countries could also explore novel forms of cooperation to build trust, he said. Mulmi proposed shared models of governance in disputed areas or “soft borders” that allow for easier travel and trade. He acknowledged that there could be risks to this approach. It could build community trust, but sudden openness could also be an opportunity for militant groups looking to attack either country.
Above all, Mulmi said that local and international peacebuilders working in India and Pakistan need to adopt a model that accepts that different worldviews can coexist peacefully. “There is no truth with a capital T – there is your truth and my truth – if we want to establish one truth, we’ll always keep on fighting.”
Keywords: India, Pakistan, crisis, Indus water treaty, Indo-Pakistani, Pahalgam, Pahalgam attack, conflict, conflict resolution, peace, airstrikes
