Engineering Lasting Peace Between India and Pakistan: The Path Through Democracy

 

Engineering Lasting Peace Between India and Pakistan: The Path Through Democracy

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a prominent Pakistani politician, recently stated that “Pakistan is one of the biggest victims of terrorism” while emphasizing the need for dialogue to resolve three critical issues—Kashmir, terrorism, and water—for sustainable peace in the region. While his call for dialogue is commendable, the root of the India-Pakistan conflict lies deeper than these issues alone. For lasting peace to take hold, Pakistan must transform into a full-fledged democracy where its military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are unequivocally accountable to a democratically elected parliament, much like in India. Without this fundamental shift, discussions on Kashmir, water, or any other issue will remain superficial, unable to address the core obstacle: Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism.

The Crux of the Problem: Pakistan’s Military and ISI

At the heart of the India-Pakistan impasse is the uncomfortable reality that Pakistan’s military and ISI wield disproportionate power, often operating independently of—or even dictating to—the country’s elected government. Unlike India, where the armed forces and intelligence agencies function under civilian oversight, Pakistan’s democratic institutions are frequently undermined by its military establishment. The ISI’s documented history of aiding and abetting terrorist groups, particularly in the context of Kashmir, is a significant barrier to peace. From supporting militant outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba to providing safe havens for insurgents, the Pakistani state’s complicity in terrorism is an open secret—one that democratically elected leaders are often powerless to confront.

This lack of accountability creates a vicious cycle. Terrorism, which Bilawal claims victimizes Pakistan, is in part a byproduct of the state’s own policies. The military and ISI’s unchecked influence prevents meaningful reforms, perpetuates regional instability, and fuels distrust with India. For dialogue to succeed, Pakistan must first establish a democratic framework where the military and ISI are answerable to elected representatives. Only then can the state credibly commit to dismantling terror networks and fostering peace.

Kashmir: A Divided Region, Not a Divided Destiny

Bilawal’s mention of Kashmir as a key issue is unsurprising, given its centrality to India-Pakistan tensions. However, the narrative around Kashmir often ignores a broader historical context: the partition of the Indian subcontinent created multiple divided regions, not just Kashmir. Punjab, Bengal, and even lesser-discussed regions like Mithila span both countries, yet they do not provoke the same level of conflict. The difference lies in the militarization of the Kashmir issue, driven largely by Pakistan’s support for cross-border insurgency.

A democratic Pakistan, with a military subordinate to civilian rule, could shift the paradigm. Instead of viewing Kashmir as a territorial dispute, both nations could prioritize robust trade and people-to-people connections across their shared borders. Punjab and Bengal demonstrate that divided regions can coexist peacefully when economic and cultural ties are strong. A democratic Pakistan would be better positioned to negotiate confidence-building measures, such as increased trade, visa relaxations, and cultural exchanges, which could de-escalate tensions in Kashmir. Without democratic accountability, however, Pakistan’s military establishment will continue to exploit Kashmir as a tool for domestic legitimacy and regional leverage, perpetuating the conflict.

Water: A Treaty in Place, Cooperation Needed

On the issue of water, Bilawal’s concerns are valid but overstated. The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, brokered by the World Bank, remains one of the most successful bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan, governing the sharing of the Indus River system. Despite decades of hostility, the treaty has held firm, proving that cooperation is possible even in tense times. However, mistrust—fueled by Pakistan’s internal power dynamics—often leads to exaggerated fears about India’s upstream water management.

A democratic Pakistan, with transparent governance and a military accountable to civilian leadership, could engage in constructive dialogue to modernize the treaty’s implementation. Joint monitoring mechanisms, data-sharing agreements, and collaborative water conservation projects could address concerns while building trust. Such cooperation requires a Pakistani state that prioritizes diplomacy over posturing, which is only feasible under a robust democratic system.

The Path Forward: Democracy as the Foundation

Bilawal’s call for dialogue is a step in the right direction, but it cannot succeed without addressing the structural flaws in Pakistan’s governance. A full-fledged democracy, where the military and ISI are subordinate to elected officials, is the prerequisite for tackling terrorism, Kashmir, and water disputes. India’s own experience demonstrates the stabilizing power of democratic accountability: its military operates under civilian control, and its intelligence agencies do not dictate foreign policy. Pakistan must emulate this model to break the cycle of mistrust and violence.

To achieve this, Pakistan’s political leaders, including figures like Bilawal, must champion institutional reforms that curb the military’s influence. This includes strengthening parliamentary oversight, ensuring judicial independence, and fostering a free press to hold power accountable. International partners, including India, can support this process by engaging with Pakistan’s civilian leadership while maintaining pressure on its military to relinquish control over foreign and security policy.

Conclusion: Peace Through Democracy

Lasting peace between India and Pakistan is not a pipe dream, but it hinges on a fundamental transformation in Pakistan’s polity. A democratic Pakistan, where the military and ISI answer to elected representatives, can dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism, normalize relations over Kashmir through trade and dialogue, and strengthen cooperation on water management. Without this shift, talks on any issue will remain mired in suspicion and sabotage. Bilawal’s vision for peace is achievable, but it begins with Pakistan embracing true democracy—a step that would not only benefit the region but also liberate Pakistan from its own internal contradictions.

Engineering Lasting Peace Between India and Pakistan: The Path Through Democracy https://t.co/0wjmz7APJ1 @BBhuttoZardari @AseefaBZ @ImranKhanPTI @GovtofPakistan @PMOIndia @narendramodi @AmitShah @DrSJaishankar @MEAIndia

— Paramendra Kumar Bhagat (@paramendra) May 21, 2025

My speech today in the National Assembly of Pakistan on India’s threats to peace and stability in the region, its weaponization of water and betrayal of the Indus Valley Civilization. pic.twitter.com/RlFjKDs53T

— BilawalBhuttoZardari (@BBhuttoZardari) May 6, 2025

China, Russia And The India Pakistan Conflict

The recent India-Pakistan conflict, sparked by the April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians, has seen China and Russia play complex and contrasting roles behind the scenes. Their actions reflect strategic interests, historical alliances, and efforts to balance regional influence, often shaped by their broader geopolitical goals.

China's Role

China has been Pakistan’s primary backer, leveraging its deep economic and military ties to support Islamabad while gathering intelligence and testing its military technology. Key aspects of China’s role include:

• Military Support and Technology Testing: China has supplied Pakistan with advanced weaponry, including J-10C fighter jets, which Pakistan claimed shot down Indian aircraft, such as French-made Rafale jets, during the conflict. These claims, though unconfirmed by India, highlight the conflict as a testing ground for Chinese military exports against Western and Russian hardware. Chinese defense stocks, like AVIC Chengdu Aircraft, surged 40% amid these developments, reflecting confidence in their technology’s performance.
• Intelligence Gathering: China has capitalized on the conflict to collect data on Indian military capabilities, particularly air defenses and missile systems like the BrahMos, co-developed with Russia. Chinese intelligence teams have been active in monitoring Indian actions from border installations, space assets, and naval deployments in the Indian Ocean, including coordinated movements of Chinese fishing vessels acting as militia for intelligence purposes.
• Diplomatic Support: China has consistently supported Pakistan diplomatically, framing India’s military actions as “regrettable” and avoiding labeling the Pahalgam attack as terrorism until after a ceasefire was agreed upon. Beijing also claimed a role in brokering the May 10, 2025, ceasefire, stating that Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s talks with Pakistan’s Ishaq Dar and India’s Ajit Doval facilitated de-escalation. However, India has not corroborated this narrative, suggesting China’s claims may be exaggerated for diplomatic leverage.
• Strategic Leverage: China’s support for Pakistan aligns with its long-standing rivalry with India, particularly over border disputes and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Some posts on X suggest China has signaled potential intervention if India escalates along the Line of Control (LoC), though this remains speculative and unverified. China’s actions also aim to counter U.S. influence in the region, as a prolonged conflict could strengthen Washington’s role, which Beijing seeks to avoid.

Russia’s Role

Russia, traditionally a close ally of India, has adopted a more neutral stance, attempting to balance its ties with both India and Pakistan while maintaining its strategic partnership with China. Its behind-the-scenes role includes:

• Arms Supply to India: Russia has continued to provide India with critical military equipment, such as Igla-S air defense missiles, deployed to forward areas in Jammu and Kashmir following the Pahalgam attack. These supplies, facilitated under India’s emergency procurement powers, bolster India’s tactical capabilities along the disputed border.
• Mediation Offers: Russia has positioned itself as a potential mediator, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offering to facilitate a political settlement between India and Pakistan. Lavrov held talks with both Pakistani and Indian counterparts on May 2 and May 4, 2025, emphasizing restraint and dialogue. This reflects Russia’s historical role as a neutral broker, as seen in the 1966 Tashkent summit.
• Diplomatic Nuances: Unlike China, Russia explicitly condemned the Pahalgam attack as terrorism, aligning more closely with India’s narrative. However, its call for restraint and de-escalation mirrors China’s, though with less overt bias toward one side. Russia’s neutrality is partly driven by its growing, albeit limited, ties with Pakistan, including energy cooperation and membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
• Strategic Balancing: Russia’s deepening partnership with China complicates its position. While it remains India’s largest arms supplier, Moscow’s relations with Pakistan have warmed, raising concerns in New Delhi about a potential Russia-China-Pakistan axis. However, Russia has avoided major arms sales to Pakistan to preserve its strategic ties with India, which it views as a hedge against China’s regional dominance.

Comparative Dynamics

• Diverging Interests: The conflict has strained the Russia-China axis, with China openly backing Pakistan and Russia leaning toward India while advocating neutrality. This split, rare given their alignment on issues like Ukraine, underscores their differing stakes in South Asia. China’s support for Pakistan is driven by its anti-India stance and the BRI, while Russia’s ties with India are rooted in decades of defense and diplomatic cooperation.
• Geopolitical Implications: Both nations prefer a de-escalated South Asia to avoid empowering the U.S., which could leverage a prolonged conflict to strengthen its regional influence. However, China’s intelligence-gathering and military testing contrast with Russia’s focus on mediation and maintaining its arms market in India.
• Backchannel Influence: Both countries likely engaged in discreet backchannel diplomacy, as historical India-Pakistan crises have often relied on third-party facilitation. China’s role in easing UN Security Council language on the Pahalgam attack and Russia’s mediation offers suggest such efforts, though their effectiveness remains unclear.

Conclusion

China has played a proactive role behind the scenes, bolstering Pakistan militarily and diplomatically while using the conflict to test its weapons and gather intelligence on India. Russia, conversely, has maintained a more balanced approach, supplying India with arms and offering mediation to both sides, reflecting its strategic interest in preserving ties with New Delhi while cautiously engaging Islamabad. Both nations seek to limit escalation to avoid a stronger U.S. presence, but their differing alignments—China with Pakistan and Russia with India—highlight tensions in their broader partnership. The lack of transparency in backchannel efforts and conflicting ceasefire narratives underscore the complexity of their roles.

Note: Some claims, particularly from X posts about Chinese intervention threats, are speculative and lack corroboration from primary sources. Always cross-reference such information for accuracy.

China, Pakistan agree with Taliban to expand Economic Corridor into Afghanistan China, Pakistan and Afghanistan on Wednesday agreed to expand the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan as top leaders from the three nations agreed to deepen trilateral cooperation.

China seizes rare intelligence opportunity amid India-Pakistan standoff Security analysts and diplomats say China's military modernisation has reached a point where it has the ability to deeply scrutinise Indian actions in real time from its border installations and Indian Ocean fleets as well as from space