Air Marshal (Retd) Shahid Akhtar Alvi

It is a tragic reality that many young people today have grown up seeing the seven decades of managed hostility between India and Pakistan as a permanent and unquestioned feature of life. This condition did not emerge overnight, nor can it be attributed to any single actor or decision; it evolved gradually through history, conflict, and accumulated mistrust, shaping the strategic environment in which both states have operated. The culmination of these aspects has created a climate of distrust between India and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, ordinary people in Lahore, Karachi, Delhi, and Lucknow continue to contend with inflation, unemployment, strained public services, worsening climatic conditions and shrinking opportunities for their children. In such an environment, prolonged tension between states often diverts public attention toward external threats, leaving little space for sustained focus on long-term governance challenges, economic reform, and social equity. The overwhelming majority of people are aware of the continued presence of an imbalanced situation between the two countries, yet many choose not to voice their opinions regarding this issue for fear of misinterpretation.

Beyond severing ties between two neighbouring states, this rivalry has impacted public psychology, education narratives, political behaviour, economic priorities, and media incentives in ways that continuously prioritise security needs over governance and development issues. Even beyond intent or design, dynamics have taken on a life of their own, often resulting in larger budgets, greater secrecy, and reduced tolerance for dissent.

In both countries, strategic decision-making remains concentrated within limited institutional frameworks that are often removed from the everyday economic pressures faced by society. The cumulative costs of constrained trade, and deferred development are therefore felt most directly by citizens, whose role in shaping long-term security policy is almost non existent. As a result, despite steep cost, hostility endures as it simplifies difficult choices and postpones harder reforms.

The International military-industrial complex draws comfort from the enduring rivalry between the two regional powers. In effect, it has a vested interest in sustaining this hostility for a simple reason that prolonged tension transforms conflict into an industry and then the same military-industrial complex shapes and often distorts policy choices that might otherwise lean toward restraint and reconciliation.

History and economics both suggest that regional trade remains one of the most reliable paths to shared prosperity as it lowers costs, improves efficiency, and creates mutual stakes in long-term stability. While India may currently feel confident enough to place limited emphasis on regional cooperation due to the momentum of its own economy, it would be prudent not to overlook the longer-term implications such a posture can carry for strategic autonomy. Recent diplomatic frictions and tariff pressures from major powers serve as reminders that external partnerships are often shaped by shifting interests rather than enduring commitments. Even when global alignments appear favourable, they rarely offer permanence or insulation from future recalibration. In this context, regional engagement should always be viewed as a stabilising asset that preserves strategic balance and reduces vulnerability to external shifts.

In light of these realities, it would be prudent for India to engage both China and Pakistan in parallel, rather than treating regional relationships as secondary to distant alignments or short-term tactical considerations. A balanced regional approach would better serve long-term stability and preserve India’s strategic autonomy in an increasingly fluid global order. Besides, a forward-looking regional posture would signal confidence and strategic maturity, particularly at a time when the limits of external partnerships are becoming increasingly evident. for instance, India’s activities in Afghanistan are closely observed and broadly interpreted as attempts to exert influence in ways that ultimately complicate regional stability rather than enhance it. This is not a smart long-term move, especially when it risks deepening mistrust with Pakistan while simultaneously aggravating relations with China, a co-equal global power whose proximity and economic weight cannot be wished away. This is not merely a personal view but, in fact, seasoned Indian analysts, including Pravin Sawhney, have repeatedly cautioned that antagonising China while remaining regionally isolated risks overstretching India’s resources without delivering meaningful gains in security.

SAARC, once envisioned as a vehicle for transforming South Asia through cooperation, has gradually been paralysed, largely because India has been unwilling to allow it to function independently of bilateral disputes. This has persisted despite Indian policymakers being fully aware that Pakistan’s political leadership has, over time, consistently expressed a willingness to move forward, and that sustained Track-II engagement reflects a broader desire within Pakistan’s establishment to avoid perpetual confrontation. At the same time, recent unilateral steps taken by India in Jammu and Kashmir, perceived across Pakistan as legally and morally troubling, have deeply affected public sentiment and further constrained diplomatic space. While these developments have complicated engagement, they need not define the future. A regional framework built on restraint, mutual respect, and incremental confidence-building remains possible if political will is exercised on both sides, particularly by recognising that durable stability cannot emerge from unilateralism or the marginalisation of legitimate regional concerns. Hence, BJPs Persisting policies that alienate neighbours while relying on extra-regional balances may offer short-term reassurance, but over time they erode strategic autonomy.

It is also important to recognise that hostility toward Pakistan rooted in the trauma of Partition is not a nationwide sentiment within India. Its emotional intensity is largely........

© The Frontier Post