A stalemate is reached when neither of the opposing parties to an issue relent on their demands. The same is the case with the dialogue for peace between Pakistan and India. It is a dialogue for peace because both countries entered into an agreement at Simla, India (July 2, 1972) to resolve their mutual disputes bilaterally and peacefully. However, the way Narendra Modi has been dealing with Pakistan since he took oath as the prime minister of India, the deadlock was bound to happen one day. There are two other trends that bespeak a change in India’s attitude towards Pakistan: First, the continual firing and shelling across the line of control and working boundary. Secondly, prohibiting Pakistan’s delegations from meeting the leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) who are active in the Indian part of Kashmir.There has been a discernible trend amongst the Kashmiris inhabiting the Indian part of Kashmir that they wave the Pakistani flag and verbalise their pro-Pakistan sentiments. India suppresses this phenomenon vehemently but it springs up again. In the Indian part of Kashmir, the APHC spearheaded the phenomenon, which alone speaks volumes for the unresolved status of Kashmir and implies their wish to join Pakistan. The question is this: by silencing the Kashmiris, can the reality be changed that the future of Kashmir as a whole is an unresolved component of the partition plan of June 3, 1947 that created both Pakistan and India? Certainly, the partition plan cannot be erased from history. Similarly, the instrument of accession cannot be a substitute for the consensus of the masses of the (former) princely state of Kashmir. The reality surrounding the instrument of accession, which India claims to have in its possession, is now known to all and sundry.After more than sixty years of partition, if India has failed to convince the Kashmiris living in its part of Kashmir to support it and be at peace with the reality of a divided Kashmir, it simply means that the demand of the Kashmiris must be bigger than and different from what is being offered to them by India.In August 2014, when the secretary-level talks between both the countries were cancelled by India after Pakistan’s high commissioner in New Delhi invited and met with the leaders of the APHC, Pakistan committed two mistakes. Firstly, Pakistan did not emphasise the need for the word Kashmir to be present in the joint declaration issued in Ufa, Russia, in July 2015. Secondly, Pakistan did not make it clear to India that it would not discuss the issue of Kashmir without consulting the leaders of the Kashmiris living in the Indian part of Kashmir, who are mostly represented by the APHC.At Ufa, the joint press statement issued by Pakistan and India did not mention the word of Kashmir but laid emphasis on the issue of terrorism, to be discussed in coming days. India might have thought that the speech of Narendra Modi at Dhaka University, Bangladesh in June 2015 served the purpose of bringing Pakistan under pressure on the issue of terrorism. In reality, it was a political gaffe committed by Narendra Modi to disparage Pakistan in Bangladesh. In a way, Narendra Modi tried to commiserate with Bangladesh to earn its favour but he ended up earning the ire of Pakistanis. Whatever Narendra Modi said in Dhaka was incommensurate with the status of the premier of a country. Neither time nor occasion called for the words he uttered in his speech. It seems that Narendra Modi has yet to learn the basics of politics on the regional or international level. Narendra Modi may be a great leader of the state of Gujarat but he is proving himself a less than great leader of India. On the other hand, the compromise the government of Pakistan made in the joint statement issued at Ufa cost it humiliation at home. Both Sartaj Aziz and Tariq Fatemi were criticised for conceding to the assertion of India. The APHC leaders also criticised the government of Pakistan. Consequently, the government of Pakistan overemphasised the issue of Kashmir and had to reach out to the leaders of the APHC.On August 22, Sushma Swaraj, Foreign Minister of India, held a press conference in New Delhi and revealed that the planned meeting of the National Security Advisors (NSA) of both countries would take place on two preconditions: Firstly, only terrorism-related issues would be discussed. Secondly, Sartaj Aziz, Pakistan’s NSA, would not meet APHC leaders. That is, Kashmir will not be discussed, nor will the APHC leaders be consulted. Perhaps India overlooks the fact that the major stumbling block in the path of fostering friendly relations between both the countries is not terrorism but Kashmir. In the same vein, the issue of terrorism, though important, cannot act as a competitor to the issue of Kashmir as the first priority. Secondly, Pakistan has no mandate to exclude the Kashmiris from bilateral talks with India. Whether declared or not, they are part of the negotiation. Thirdly, the final resolution of the Kashmir issue is yet to be decided. Nevertheless, the stalemate calls for the intervention of a third party to decide on their behalf. That is how the United States (US) enters the scene and advises both the countries.Hitherto, Narendra Modi might have learnt the lesson that diplomacy is an essential part of politics. Crass politics cannot serve the purpose as it causes more embarrassment than good. Pakistan might have also learnt the lesson that the compromises that are uncalled for cause humiliation. On the diplomatic front, if Pakistan becomes able to consult the APHC leaders before entering into a dialogue with India (whether or not terrorism remains the number one item on the agenda of bilateral negotiations), it will be a great diplomatic success for Pakistan. The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com