FOR years, even the smallest suggestion of engagement with Pakistan would trigger outrage in India’s political discourse. Against this backdrop, recent remarks by senior figures linked to the Indian establishment stand out. RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale’s statement that “there should always be a window for dialogue” with Pakistan, later echoed by retired Indian army chief Gen Manoj Naravane, merits attention. These remarks do not indicate a breakthrough. They are the personal views of, no doubt, influential figures. But they do not signal an official policy shift in New Delhi, nor do they erase the many years of hostility, diplomatic freezes and inflammatory rhetoric that have pushed relations between the two nuclear neighbours into a dangerous cycle. And yet, they matter, because they come from sections not usually associated with conciliatory language. Pakistan has long maintained that dialogue remains the only workable path between the two countries, regardless of tensions. Islamabad has repeatedly called for engagement on issues ranging from Kashmir and trade to humanitarian matters and regional stability. Invariably, India has resisted these overtures, particularly after crises such as Pulwama and the events that followed. The suspension of trade, shrinking diplomatic contact and curbs on people-to-people interaction have deepened mistrust.

That is why the latest remarks are worth noting. Mr Hosabale’s emphasis on keeping diplomatic channels open, continuing visas and encouraging civic and sporting exchanges reflects an important reality: permanent hostility serves neither country. Gen Naravane’s observation that ordinary people on both sides share the same everyday concerns is equally hard to dispute. The reaction within India says much about the current climate. Opposition criticism of the RSS leader’s comments showed how politically fraught even a modest call for dialogue has become. This is unfortunate. In any mature democracy, advocating talks between neighbours is not treated as ideological surrender. Optimism must remain cautious. Dialogue cannot advance through occasional statements alone. Durable engagement requires political will and consistency on both sides. The region has paid a heavy price for decades of confrontation and nationalist grandstanding. South Asia does not need perpetual hostility as its defining condition. Even limited openings for dialogue deserve encouragement. Keeping channels open is not weakness. Between nuclear neighbours, it is basic common sense.

Published in Dawn, May 15th, 2026