February 7, 2026
Press Release
LAHORE
Diplomatic disengagement and a lack of dialogue between states were the biggest threats to regional peace in South Asia concluded speakers in a session at the Asma Jahangir Conference titled “Hostilities Keeping South Asia Back”. Panelists included Khurram Dastgir, Pakistan’s former Federal Minister for Defence, Shahid Malik, former Ambassador and High Commissioner to India (Pakistan); and Kanak Mani Dixit, Founding Editor of Himal Southasian (Nepal). The session was moderated by Maheen Pracha, Research and Communications Lead at the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP).
The speakers concurred that it was not the disputes themselves that were the cause of regional instability, but the suspension of treaties and dialogue between the countries. These had greatly damaged chances of peace in South Asia.
Speaking about the diplomatic efforts on behalf of Pakistan, Khurram Dastagir, former Federal Minister for Defence, said that the Prime Minister of Pakistan had offered dialogue with India at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to resolve outstanding issues, but the offer had not been considered. He also said that the Indian Prime Minister Narender Modi did not want peace. “The conflict had ended with missile exchanges between Pakistan and India, and once missiles are launched, all calculations are left behind,” he warned.
Dastgir proposed creating new mechanisms of communication, including unannounced back-channel diplomacy and crisis-management talks hosted in a third country where both sides could present evidence. He said that the two nuclear-armed countries had also previously come dangerously close to the use of nuclear weapons.
Speaking about the legacy of Asma Jahangir, Dastgir said that she had taught generations to continue fighting against injustice.
Shahid Malik also echoed Dastagir’s sentiments saying that India did not want dialogue. Referring to diplomatic efforts, he noted that because of this there was a growing lack of trust on both sides.
“Earlier journalists used to travel between the two countries, but such exchanges have now become a dream,” he said.
He said that by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, India had violated international laws. He questioned why the Indus Waters Commission had not been allowed to meet on the IWT issue, emphasizing that if a forum existed, then issues should be resolved there.
Malik also remarked that Pakistan and India did not have diplomatic relations at the High Commission level. “You can’t choose your neighbours, so you must learn to live together; Dialogue is the best way forward,” he said.
He said that the IWT had been ended using the Pahalgam incident as an excuse. He also condemned the infiltration of such politics into sports, and that relations had now become so flimsy, that they were reduced to seeing if each country’s sports team had shaken hands or not.
Meanwhile Kanak Mani Dixit stressed that it was important to the entire world that the Pakistan–India dispute should be resolved, as both are nuclear countries. He said SAARC had “a very slow pulse rate”, and it should be strengthened.
“When SAARC already exists, it should be strengthened, rather than thought of being replaced, otherwise it would be like Trump’s “Board of Peace” even with the existence of the UN,” he said.
Dixit emphasized that India and Pakistan should meet for the betterment of South Asia and should even meet ‘secretly’ to start dialogue.
The speakers agreed that sustainable peace across South Asia was only possible through structured, sustained, and multi-layered dialogue. South Asia was the least integrated region in the world, it was said, which means over two billion people have been denied livelihoods, trade and welfare. People to people engagement would drastically reduce hostilities and politicians must consider confidence building measures.
All the panelists agreed that when two nuclear-armed states allow communication to collapse, the risks extended far beyond them and threaten regional and global security.
Dialogue, they stressed, is not a concession but a necessity.