After more than fifty days of turmoil, there seems to be some sort of break in the overcast atmosphere of Kashmir. The Prime Minister&’s conciliatory statement, reinforced by that of Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, and now the announced visit of an all-party delegation, may perhaps set the course in a different direction. The curfew has finally been lifted, to general relief; people are thus able to resume their everyday lives and move without restrictions, and there have been no incidents so far such as to encourage a revived crackdown. That is a start but for longer term settling of issues there can be no getting away from dialogue between all affected parties, something that has been asked for from all sides. How far the different parties are now ready remains to be seen, and alternative, less provocative ways of promoting their cause will be needed, as well as a more refined institutional response by the security agencies.This is a big challenge for those who have been in the thick of events over the last fifty days.

Events in the Valley have given salience to the call for revived Indo-Pak dialogue. This call is renewed from time to time and in recent months it has seemed on more than one occasion that dialogue, stalled for so long, could once more be revived. But expectations have been belied as a result of fluctuations in the general state of relations between the two countries. There have been extraordinary events taking place, like Mr Modi&’s drop-in visit to Lahore, and earlier we saw Mr Nawaz Sharif at the inaugural of the Indian PM, and these dramatic occurrences seemed to promise more: after the Heads had shown the way, one could well consider official-level meetings as envisaged in the 20-year-old dialogue process almost mundane. But that is not how it has been. The uncertainties of the sub-continent have led to frequent oscillation in the effort to bridge the gap, and currently there is no great expectation of what talking, can achieve.

In token of the reduced anticipation of what could be achieved, neither side has shown any great eagerness to resume the effort to talk. There is an agreed agenda and structure for the talks that should in theory permit ready resumption when circumstances permit. The parties do not have to begin all over again with procedural issues, and can, if so inclined, convene and pick up from where they left off. But no signal to that effect has been given; the occasional rather half-hearted suggestions have not led anywhere, and proposals to tweak the agenda to reflect the demands of one side or the other have had a dampening effect. As so often in the past, deteriorating overall relations have halted the process and ensured that hopes generated by unexpected friendly gestures at the very top should remain unfulfilled.

For now, dialogue may have come to a halt but there can be no gainsaying the unavoidable need for the two countries to talk to each other. US Secretary of State Kerry has just been in New Delhi and has made some remarks about combating terror that have been well received in India, and should also give a suitable message on the other side of the border. Mr Kerry&’s visit serves to take the India-US relationship an important step further. But there is no deus ex machina who will emerge and take matters in hand: the countries themselves have to find the way, and today there is nobody with the temerity to try to push them where they may not wish to go. So if there is to be a break in the logjam, it has to be achieved by the parties themselves, for which there is no process other than dialogue.

Nor can it be supposed that dialogue must necessarily be unproductive and only lead to disappointment. The many attempts over the last few years have thrown up a number of ideas that have brought a touch of improvement through agreed measures like the cross-LOC bus service and enlarged trade across the divide — small steps so far but capable of being enlarged without prolonged negotiation. Such measures are directed specifically to local requirements and thus to talk about them may be especially relevant at this time when the State has been in turmoil.

There are other aspects of dialogue that can also be kept in mind. Most extensive of the past efforts, and apparently productive, were the back-channel Indo-Pak talks between specially appointed interlocutors, experienced former diplomats, who had prolonged discussions under the active guidance of their respective leaders. At the end of it, they came up with an agreed plan for further steps on J&K, and in fact it was claimed on their behalf that they had succeeded in identifying an agreed way forward. A four-point plan was mentioned in this context, incorporating the essential elements on which they had agreed. This plan has been the subject of voluminous commentaries, including a particularly detailed account by Mr Kasuri, Pak Foreign Minister at the time, who has given an insider&’s view of the proceedings. Even so, there are many uncharted areas, including information about what was actually agreed. Moreover, the substance of the putative agreement is often attributed to former Pak President Musharraf, who was in office at the time, though his Indian counterpart, Dr. Manmohan Singh, may have made as great a contribution. As it happened, both leaders left office not long after, so that the constructive work done under their joint aegis could not be pursued. Nevertheless, the fact that the two sides were able to go through the issues in great detail and come to conclusions they could both accept should be regarded as a beacon for future negotiators. The issues are highly intractable, as long experience has shown, but the back-channel experience has shown that they can be successfully tackled if both so desire.

The Indian state has responded to the lengthy disturbances in J&K by trying to find a way to respond effectively at many levels, administrative as well as political. An all-party delegation is shortly to visit the State in order to assess the situation. This may be an appropriate time to consider the possibility of returning to dialogue and negotiation. Experience of the past, including the most recent developments, offers mixed prospects of where dialogue could lead: more often than not talks have got bogged down and achieved little. Moreover, there are voices on both sides that do not favour talks across the board. Yet, as suggested above, there is no real alternative. It looks like a good time to get back to the table; re-opening talks can help reduce tension and disruption even if it does not lead to early results.

The writer is India&’s former Foreign Secretary.