This is not the first time that India and Pakistan have stood dangerously close to the precipice of war. But history has shown that when tensions have surged, it was often the cooler heads of a cross section of civil society—those working quietly behind the scenes—who helped pull both nations back from the edge.
Today, however, those quiet channels of communication seem worryingly silent.
For decades, Track II diplomacy—unofficial dialogues involving retired military officials, diplomats, intelligence officers, civil society actors, and senior journalists—played a subtle but essential role in defusing conflict and preserving peace.
These behind-the-curtain efforts served as vital conduits for sanity, even as official positions hardened.
But the relevance of Track II seems to be waning.
A cross-section of Track II actors told DW that the lack of political will, drying up of foreign funding that kept this mechanism breathing, and the absence of engaged middle classes and fading out of individuals who had pre-partition links have all conspired to erode its impact.
Once, there were nearly 15 active mechanisms fostering dialogue and understanding between the two estranged neighbours. Today, most lie dormant or disbanded.
Organisations like the South Asia Free Media Association (SAFMA), the Pakistan-India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD), the Pakistan-India Parliamentary Forum (PIPF), and the Southasia Peace Action Network (SAPAN) were once critical players in promoting people-to-people contact.
Their work helped soften hardened perceptions and rebuild fractured trust. But much of that groundwork now appears swept away in the tide of nationalism.
Track II wasn’t always confined to the realms of academia or activism. At times, it even penetrated the corridors of power. There have been instances when unofficial diplomacy extended into the parliamentary level, operating through informal back channels with tacit blessings from both sides.
In 2003, under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a multi-party delegation of Indian parliamentarians travelled to Pakistan under the banner of PIPF.
“The Indian delegation had people from across party lines. There was a very healthy exchange between the members of the two countries, and members of both countries had agreed on a ceasefire on the Line of Control,” recalls veteran Pakistani journalist Imtiaz Alam, co-founder of SAFMA along with his Indian counterparts Vinod Sharma and the late Tapan Bose.
In fact, only weeks later in 2004, following a visit by a group of Indian journalists to Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, a major breakthrough occurred.
The journalists gave their feedback to New Delhi, urging the government to allow cross-border movement. Shortly afterwards, the governments of both countries opened the Kashmir border at four points—facilitating people-to-people contact and trade. “This was the result of that delegation's efforts,” says Alam, who was also part of the mission.
The pictures of Bihar strongman Lalu Prasad Yadav, in his own rustic style, moving on the streets of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, interacting with shopkeepers, vendors, had mesmerised the public.
Collapse of Civility
Fast forward to today, and the story is starkly different.
Since 2014, Track II efforts have steadily disappeared. Even as war talk ramps up across television studios and social media platforms, civil society voices have retreated into silence. The once-vibrant back channel networks lie abandoned, their influence diminished.
The recent attack in Pahalgam only inflamed online jingoism. War-mongering hashtags and nationalist fervour have drowned out the voices of peace, even as civil society remains paralysed in wait-and-watch mode. Governments on both sides have done little to de-escalate.
“There could be no better time than now to show political wisdom and find a peaceful solution,” says O.P. Shah, convenor of the Centre for Peace and Progress—one of the rare Track II forums still active today. Shah, currently on a 12-day tour of Kashmir, is meeting stakeholders in a last-ditch effort to keep dialogue alive.
It took over 10 days after the Pahalgam attack for peace activists from both nations to cobble together a joint statement, urging their governments to seek a no-war solution. But unlike previously, it had hardly any impact.
Vinod Sharma, a veteran journalist involved in many Track II initiatives, laments the declining public support for peace diplomacy.
“Hate has overtaken hope. There is a complete lack of political will in both countries. Those advocating peace are now mocked and labelled anti-national,” he observes.
The decline in Track II engagement reflects broader societal shifts. Ultra-nationalism has taken centre stage, fuelled by round-the-clock news cycles and the unforgiving nature of social media.
“We cannot deny the fact that there is a sense of fear amongst Indian activists. Track II today lacks the government’s opposition, challenges of a hostile visa regime and threatening surveillance. The mainstream and social media narratives are only worsening hostility,” says Rita Manchanda of PIPFPD.
The seeds of this decline were sown long before.
The 2008 Mumbai terror attacks marked a turning point—a deep shock that severely dented the credibility of peace efforts. While some back channel dialogues did continue between activists and the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) on both sides, the civil society momentum was irreparably damaged.
The election of Narendra Modi’s government in 2014 introduced new challenges. The new government spurned any efforts of civil society to interfere in diplomacy. Modi himself even taunted and called such people the ‘Khan Market Gang'.
Civil society initiatives lost access to crucial funding, particularly after the government revoked the FCRA (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act) licences of many organisations involved in Track II dialogue.
West Turns Away, Public Turns Hostile
International backers, too, began withdrawing support.
For years, pro-democracy and pro-peace European institutions have been helping peace-building efforts in South Asia by funding organisations that support this cause and build people-to-people contacts.
But with America’s intervention in Afghanistan and Europe grappling with its own economic and political crises, attention shifted. Many donors moved resources to Afghanistan, while others lost faith and got discouraged by the clear absence of political will for reconciliation in Delhi and Islamabad.
Observers also argue that Track II efforts had remained elitist, driven by those with nostalgia for Partition or personal ties across the border, but disconnected from the younger generations. With Modi holding the anti-elitist broom, they also became the target and their access to power was blocked.
“These meetings only had sentimental value. For the rest, they mean little,” says a former Indian activist, now a prominent nationalist commentator who requested anonymity.
Manchanda agrees. “Somewhere along the way, we lost the youth. Today’s generation is shaped more by viral hate content than shared memories of Partition. That disconnect is dangerous. Still, there are glimmers of hope in a few emerging youth-led initiatives trying to revive interest in shared heritage.”
The role of media cannot be overstated in the erosion of Track II diplomacy. Since the 1999 Kargil conflict, when 24-hour television news took root in India, coverage of Indo-Pak relations has grown increasingly shrill and confrontational. Social media has only deepened the divide, transforming dialogue into a battlefield of hashtags.
Beena Sarwar, a prominent peace activist and founder of Southasia Peace Action Network (Sapan) and Aman Ki Asha, refuses to concede defeat.
“Track II is not dead. Our voices are simply lost in the cacophony of hate,” she says.
“We hope that what we’re witnessing is a knee-jerk reaction, and that both governments will eventually show maturity. The troll armies must be put to rest. We must find a path back to normalcy.”
She poses a hopeful comparison: “If France and Germany—two nations that fought multiple wars—can now be integral members of the European Union, why can’t India and Pakistan be good neighbours?”
It’s a compelling question—one that echoes across the now-empty corridors of informal diplomacy, waiting for someone in power to answer.
Have you liked the news article?