Islamabad moves, will Delhi respond?

The trilateral summit in Lachin did not make headlines for the right reasons. While media coverage focused on defence cooperation and investment agreements among Pakistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif sent a more consequential message. He made clear that Pakistan remains willing to engage in dialogue with India, not as a concession but as a strategic option.

This was not a shift in policy. It was a statement of clarity. For too long, South Asia has been governed by silence. With trade suspended, diplomacy frozen and hostility routine, the region has drifted into a pattern where inaction is treated as strategy. It is not.

Before 2019, despite mutual suspicion, there was movement. Limited cross-border trade through the Wagah-Attari corridor allowed exporters in places like Sialkot and Faisalabad to access Indian markets. Trade volumes were modest, but they supported livelihoods and established basic interdependence. That collapsed after India revoked Article 370 and unilaterally changed the status of Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan responded by suspending formal trade and downgrading diplomatic ties. Since then, engagement has been reduced to rhetorical cycles and the occasional humanitarian gesture.

What was lost is not only symbolic. The region remains among the least integrated in the world. Intra–South Asian trade accounts for less than five per cent of total trade volume, while in Southeast Asia, the figure exceeds 30 per cent. These numbers matter. They reflect missed opportunities for growth, investment, and regional resilience. This is not a theoretical deficit. It translates into fewer jobs, costlier imports, and wasted potential.

The prime minister’s comments should be viewed in this context. He reaffirmed Pakistan’s long-held position that any dialogue must include Kashmir. That issue remains at the centre of any durable peace process. But his remarks also pointed to a broader vision: a region that does not tie its economic future entirely to its political disputes.

Pakistan is not naive about the depth of the trust deficit. It is not asking India to overlook its security concerns, just as it will not overlook the rights of Kashmiris. But between hostility and normalisation, there are many gradations. Resuming trade, exploring issue-specific channels, or even re-establishing diplomatic contact, are all feasible if there is political will.

The summit, meanwhile, served a different purpose. Pakistan is not waiting on India. It is building a network of strategic partnerships that increase its leverage and reduce dependence on any one direction. Azerbaijan’s announcement of a $2 billion investment package, covering energy, infrastructure and defence, reflects a shared view of opportunity. These are not abstract pledges but negotiated projects that strengthen Pakistan’s position across sectors.

Turkey’s participation reinforced that the trilateral platform is more than a ceremony. With growing defence ties and economic coordination, Turkey’s engagement signals a broader realignment. The three countries may not be geographically contiguous, but are building strategic depth through cooperation. That includes defence manufacturing, energy corridors, and trade infrastructure connecting their regions.

At the same time, Pakistan is also moving to deepen ties with Iran. In the last week alone, both countries agreed to expand trade up to $10 billion annually, reopen border markets, and increase joint patrols to secure their frontier. Iran and Pakistan, long viewed as cautious neighbours, are moving toward pragmatic alignment. That relationship, too, is rooted in geography, economics, and mutual security.

These moves are not aimed at any one country. They are part of a larger recalibration. Pakistan is choosing to engage where engagement is possible, and to leave the door open where it is not. This posture does not weaken Pakistan’s position, it strengthens it. It shows that dialogue is a tool, not a reward.

India, as the largest economy in the region, must now decide how it interprets Pakistan’s message. If India seeks global leadership, it cannot afford to ignore its own neighbourhood. Great powers do not disengage. They shape the terms of engagement. They use strength to open space, not to close it.

Even modest progress would benefit the region. Trade resumption could ease inflationary pressure on both sides. Medical cooperation, especially in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics, has natural potential. People-to-people exchange could reduce mutual hostility. No one expects breakthroughs overnight, but refusing to engage is not a sign of strength. It is an admission of fear.

The prime minister’s message was delivered in front of partners in a confident setting. It was not a vague appeal; it was a specific call. Pakistan remains ready to talk, provided the conversation is serious, structured, and grounded in reality.

Silence is not strategy. Pakistan has options, and it is exercising them. But it is also signalling that regional peace cannot be postponed forever. There is a generation of South Asians growing up with no memory of functional relations between the region’s two largest countries. That is not just a diplomatic failure. It is a failure of imagination.

Dialogue will not erase differences, but it can manage them. Pakistan has taken its step; the real question is whether India is willing to match it.

The writer is a non-resident fellow at the CISS. He posts/tweets @umarwrites