Revision summary
Present India–Pakistan diplomacy lacks a living composite dialogue after 2019. LoC ceasefire and corridors can run without restoring politics, which looks like process without content. Cross-border terrorism remains India’s first veto on talks; 26/11 is the teaching rupture. Kashmir files are incompatible: internal constitutional matter versus internationalised dispute. Military-nuclear rivalry and China as partner make crises triangular. Domestic politics on both sides punish concession, so trade and visas cannot carry the relationship.
Model answer
Introduction
- India–Pakistan relations have a long archive of summits that did not stick: Tashkent, Simla, Lahore, Agra, and the composite dialogue. Calling the present an illusion means structured diplomacy is announced faster than it is lived. Inherent problems—cross-border terrorism, Kashmir, military rivalry, and domestic politics—re-embitter every thaw before trade and people-to-people tracks can mature.
Body
Why the present looks like an illusion
- After Pulwama (2019), Balakot, the constitutional change in Jammu and Kashmir, and the later halt of most trade and High Commission staffing to a minimum, there is no standing composite dialogue of the 2004–08 type.
- Ceasefire understandings on the Line of Control (including 2021) reduce artillery without restoring political conversation, which is peace as pause, not as settlement.
- Track-II and religious-corridor optics (Kartarpur) can run while the core files stay frozen, which is how an illusion of process is produced.
Inherent problems that re-embitter
- Cross-border terrorism and the infrastructure that survived even after FATF pressure remain India’s first veto on talks; Mumbai 2008 is still the teaching case that a spectacular attack empties the table.
- Jammu and Kashmir is not a residual border quarrel for either national narrative; for India it is an internal constitutional matter after 2019, for Pakistan an internationalised dispute, so the parties do not even share a file title.
- Conventional military rivalry, nuclear signalling, and China as Pakistan’s all-weather partner turn every crisis into a three-player board, which bilateral goodwill cannot reset.
- The Indus Waters Treaty survived wars and is now itself politicised; water is becoming a new inherent file, not a quiet technical leftover.
- Domestic politics in both countries punish visible concession; the army-intelligence deep State in Pakistan and electoral nationalism in India make a middle path expensive.
- Trade, visa, and cricket are hostages: they are the first to be suspended and the last to be believed, so they cannot carry the relationship when security files are toxic.
Discussion of the comment
- The comment is fair as a description of the diplomatic superstructure: joint statements without a living mechanism.
- It is incomplete if it implies there is no relationship at all: nuclear deterrence, LoC management, and occasional backchannel still exist as a thin, bitter reality.
- The honest line is that inherent problems have made normal relations the illusion, and crisis-management the only durable track.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD T[Cross-border terror] --> B[Re-embitterment] K[Incompatible Kashmir files] --> B M[Military nuclear China] --> B D[Domestic vetoes] --> B B --> ILL[Dialogue as illusion] CF[LoC ceasefire backchannel] --> THIN[Thin crisis management]
Conclusion
India–Pakistan relations look like an illusion because terror, Kashmir’s incompatible files, military-nuclear rivalry, and domestic vetoes empty every announced thaw. A ceasefire and a corridor are not a relationship. Until the inherent security problem is treated as the independent variable, diplomacy will keep producing communiqués that do not survive the next attack or the next election.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Does a ceasefire mean relations are normal?
No. It means artillery is restrained. Trade, visas, High Commissions, and a political dialogue are separate restorations.
-
Is Kashmir the only inherent problem?
It is the territorial-political core. Terrorism, nuclear rivalry, China, water, and domestic vetoes can embitter even if a Kashmir formula were imagined.
Same topic · past papers
UPPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
-
2022 · Q18 · UPGS2 · 12 marks
Write a critical note on problems and reforms of administrative system in Uttar Pradesh. -
2021 · Q16 · UPGS2 · 12 marks
Analyse the problems that have restricted the successes of Panchayati Raj System in India. How far has the Seventy-Third Constitutional Amendment been successful in countering these problems? -
2020 · Q12 · UPGS2 · 12 marks
What are the problems faced by the Election Commission as an institution at present? Also mention solution for them. -
2018 · Q3 · UPGS2 · 8 marks
Throw light on the challenges and problems of farmers and the agriculture sector in Uttar Pradesh. Suggest measures for improvement.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS2 · 8 marks · Solution
Why the Preamble is called the Philosophy of the Indian Constitution?
Indian Constitution
The Preamble compresses Nehru’s Objective Resolution into the Constitution’s moral charter. It names popular sovereignty and a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. Justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity guide Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, and duties. Kesavananda uses the Preamble as a key to the basic structure. It aids interpretation; it does not itself confer enforceable rights.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS2 · 8 marks · Solution
Why the 42nd Amendment is called a revision of the Indian Constitution?
Indian Constitution
The Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, is called a mini-Constitution because of its range. It changed the Preamble and added Article 51A duties and new DPSPs. It bound the President, extended House terms, and moved several subjects to the Concurrent List. It tried to shield constitutional amendments from judicial review. The Forty-fourth Amendment and Minerva Mills rolled much of that rewriting back.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS2 · 8 marks · Solution
Mention three demerits of Judicial Activism.
Indian Constitution
Judicial activism uses Articles 32 and 226 and PIL to fill governance gaps. First demerit: it blurs the separation of powers and lets judges write policy. Second demerit: PIL can be abused and crowd out ordinary criminal and civil work. Third demerit: courts lack ministerial data, so sweeping directions often fail on the ground. The cost is weaker Cabinet accountability and later political backlash.