The statements that have emerged after the meeting of Pakistan Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry and his Indian counterpart, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar have proved, predictably, the optimists wrong. The meeting that took place in New Delhi on the sidelines of the Heart of Asia summit was being viewed with much interest as this was the first official meeting of government representatives of Pakistan and India after the recent incidents that led to further freezing of an already strained relationship between the two states. Unshifting positions and uncompromising demands characterise most of the official meetings of Pakistani and Indian officials, and this time proved no different. It seems as if the two countries are not interested in mending ties with each other, and are content with living in a state of perpetual animosity. As no party is interested in ceding any ground to the other, the two states have resigned to issuing churlish statements that would only serve to exacerbate the situation. The same old story — ‘Kashmir remains the core issue that requires a just solution under the UNSC resolution and wishes of the Kashmiri people’ and ‘Terrorist groups based in Pakistan targeting India must not be allowed to operate in impunity’ — was reiterated by the two countries without any meaningful development in these core issues. Ostensibly, the uncompromising positions adopted in this high level meeting may be seen as nothing more than a diplomatic tactic by the two foreign secretaries. Often diplomatic meetings are characterised by a certain degree of rigidity, as countries do not want to prematurely give away their position on an issue. Moreover, demands that are higher than the ones desired are presented so that enough room is left to negotiate with them. However, Pakistan and India have been intransigently sticking to their positions for a long time, and this has led to little development in them. In such an atmosphere, such hackneyed statements seem nothing more than cosmetic attempts at further delaying peace between the two states. Even a cursory look at the statements of the two countries reveals an unwillingness to engage with each other’s concerns. As the Pakistani statement stressed on the Kashmir issue, India adamantly considered it unworthy of mentioning it, as its statement instead focused on the Pathankot incident and cross-border terrorism. Similarly, Indian concerns were noticeably missing in Pakistan’s statement. These two grossly dissimilar statements means that the two states are committed to not giving each other any common ground on which negotiations can take place. It is highly unfortunate that the securitisation narrative that has informed most of the discourse between Pakistan and India has triumphed yet again as meaningful progress in the way of peace still remains. Those who seek peace have little cause for celebration as jingoistic nationalism continues to prevail. The one glimmer of hope that this meeting has given is that, at the very least, Pakistani and Indian officials have had the first uncomfortable talk in the midst of the narrative surrounding the Pathankot incident and the arrest of Kulbushan Jadhav. However, it is up to the two countries now to build up on this and start a process of more meaningful dialogue between themselves. While the foreign secretary of Pakistan did emphasise the “early commencement of comprehensive dialogue”, it remains to be seen if the momentum of this meeting is carried forward into restarting the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue that was put on hold following the Pathankot attack. Both Pakistan and India need to realise that resumption of dialogue is necessary to improve relations. Hence, they should not lose sight of the bigger picture as they deal with their security concerns. Militant and extremist groups have for long derailed peace process whenever it has come close to meaningful development. It is high time that these groups not be allowed a veto in the affairs of Pakistan and India. The two states need to move away from the securitisation narrative and be more accommodating of each other’s concerns so that substantial improvements can take place. *