Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, announced from Islamabad that his country is prepared to pursue a composite dialogue with India, covering Kashmir and all outstanding bilateral issues. Speaking to journalists outside Parliament, Dar emphasised that any forthcoming talks would not be confined to a single topic but would encompass a broad agenda. He made clear that Pakistan had not requested mediation but was receptive to meeting in a neutral venue if offered.
Dar’s statement underscores Islamabad’s intent to break from a narrow focus on terrorism or the Kashmir issue alone. He reaffirmed that Pakistan had consistently stood against discussions featuring a single-point agenda, insisting that all pending matters must be addressed holistically. Though India has previously stipulated that dialogue must first resolve terrorism and the status of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Pakistan’s position reflects a broader scope that includes economic, political, and regional security matters.
Dar confirmed receiving a call from the United States urging restraint, telling reporters: “I received a call from the US for a ceasefire. I had made it clear that Pakistan did not want a war.” He added that the ceasefire—and the absence of further escalation—remains intact. The United States, along with other international actors, continues to play a role in maintaining stability across the region.
This diplomatic overture follows earlier remarks by Dar in June, asserting that Pakistan is “ready but not desperate” for engagement with India and advocating a wider conversation that could include issues like water security in light of tensions surrounding the Indus Waters Treaty. Similarly, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had offered willingness to engage comprehensively with India during a call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in late June.
While voices within Pakistan advocate cautious engagement, military still looms large in shaping the country’s posture. In May, the Pakistani military warned India it was “playing with fire” if hostilities continued, highlighting the volatility of the situation. To the west, former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari warned of a heightened risk of full-scale war, stressing that threats over water access and terrorism could spark irreversible escalation.
Despite these warnings, Dar’s call signals a shift towards diplomatic engagement. His proposition of a neutral venue for dialogue speaks to a more flexible, if cautious, willingness to break through entrenched positions. As Pakistan positions itself for a wider, multi-issue conversation, India’s response and willingness to reciprocate may determine whether this moment ushers in progress or stasis.
Emerging from weeks of heightened tension marked by aerial strikes, ceasefire brokered by the US, and diplomatic freezes—including suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty—this development could open a pathway toward de-escalation and constructive engagement. The composition of any forthcoming talks—both in venue and substance—will serve as a crucial barometer of willingness on both sides to move beyond entrenched mistrust.
Trump Assigns Trusted Enforcer to Delhi 