India and Pakistan relations have been strained following the Pahalgam terror attack since 2025. The incident brought the two South Asian nations to the brink of large-scale war and resulted in a deadlock in bilateral relations and public diplomacy. However, after years of severely strained relations, citizens of both countries are now calling for dialogue. The development drew attention when 177 citizens from both countries signed an open letter demanding a thaw in cold relations. The letter postulates resuming structured dialogue, particularly on the Kashmir dispute, referring to the framework discussed between 2004 and 2007.
The letter created a rhetorical base in the opening, citing that the Indian and Pakistani populations, comprising one-fifth of the world’s majority, are young and deprived of opportunities due to continued hostility. The signatories demanded immediate diplomatic measures and the resumption of normal visa services at the High Commissions of New Delhi and Islamabad. The issues were raised to facilitate family reunification, people-to-people contact, and the exchange of artists, journalists, businesspeople, and civil society groups.
In addition, the signatories also demand restoration of trade and economic activities. People in the business community suffer severe losses in their operations. In April 2026, India exported $34.5M to Pakistan, down 19.1% from April 2025, when trade totaled $42.7M. The citizen reinstates the Most-Favored Nation or equivalent nondiscriminatory agreement to promote economic integration and shared prosperity. Further, the letter also calls for the reopening of the Attari-Wagah land border, the resumption of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service, the Delhi-Lahore-Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service, the Samjhauta Express, and the Thar Express train service to reconnect divided families. Since the Pahalgam attack, Pakistan and India have closed their airspace to each other; therefore, the signatories of the letter also demand the reopening of the airspace for commercial airlines to reduce time and costs and improve connectivity.
For the sake of cultural and religious exchange, citizens of both countries demanded the reopening of the Kartarpur Sahib corridor and the lifting of restrictions on media houses and digital platforms to counter misinformation and strengthen public understanding.
The effort is no doubt commendable for a shared future, and progress is made in isolation, but the future of South Asia lies in constructive engagement and cooperation. However, Prominent Indian signatories including National Conference leader Dr Farooq Abdullah, former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, Kashmiri leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and former Intelligence chief A. S. Dulat—have faced particularly sharp criticism in sections of India’s nationalist media and political discourse.
Nationalist voices have portrayed Kashmiri political leaders and respected civil-society members who signed the appeal as “Pakistani proxies” and “traitors.” Their call to reduce tensions has been turned into a political controversy. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Hindutva-driven policies are turning India into a failed state. Planned hatred against Pakistan is being used as a shortcut solution to all of its problems, whereas it is further dividing the country. Each day, rifts among different religious and socio-political groups are growing deeper and deeper.
India’s increasingly polarised political and media environment appears so driven by hostility that even sane voices calling for peace with Pakistan are targeted. Pro-government media commentators have subjected these few peace advocates to relentless anti-Pakistan propaganda. An open letter signed by 117 Indian and Pakistani citizens called for dialogue, the restoration of diplomatic engagement, visas and people-to-people contact. However, instead of a serious debate on its proposals, several signatories have themselves been placed in the dock.
Under the BJP’s political climate, anti-Pakistan rhetoric has increasingly become a tool for domestic political mobilisation. Critics argue that this leaves little room for nuanced debate, reconciliation or independent thinking. How can the Indian government justify treating every call for dialogue as disloyalty, or branding advocates of peace as “pro-Pakistan”? The central question is whether India’s political and media space can still tolerate voices that advocate diplomacy over escalation.
The peace appeal does not represent the defeat of any country; it calls for dialogue and de-escalation. However, pro-government nationalist media outlets have focused more on attacking the identities and motives of the signatories than engaging with the substance of their proposals.
