I have just returned energised from the 16th round of the Chaophraya Dialogue, the oldest Track II continuous conversation between India and Pakistan jointly organised by the Jinnah Institute in Islamabad and the Australia India Institute in Melbourne and New Delhi. The dialogue is mostly composed of retired bureaucrats, retired generals, parliamentarians, media personnel, academics and other policy analysts.

Having attended a few track II events in the past, I knew that at a number of times such meetings sadly mirror the official track and hence lead to a bit of disappointment. Therefore, while talking to a few friends on the Pakistani delegation, I warned them of the acrimonious debate which was going to occur so that they would not be taken aback when it happens.

Held in the background of increasing tensions on the Line of Control and the unfortunate incidents in Gurdaspur and Udhampur, I expected the dialogue to be very tense and bitter. However, what transpired at the event left me cautiously hopeful.

Over two days, we discussed and took apart every argument ranging from Afghanistan to China, terrorism to ISIS, history and climate change. But in the end when the time came for framing a joint declaration, I was pleasantly surprised that no major disagreements took place. People who had disagreed with each other when in office somehow were ready to agree on joint proposals -- no gulf seemed unbridgeable.

While a lot was discussed a the Dialogue, here I shall focus on only four issues:

First, it was very clear from the Indian side that despite the fact that the Modi government wants to de-emphasise relations with Pakistan, it cannot simply ignore it. As with any government, the Modi administration is trying to move ahead in places where it sees more chances of success and hence the change in focus. However, this does not mean that if there is a chance of real improvement of relations between India and Pakistan, India will not grab the moment.

Pakistan is and will always remain India’s neighbour -- and no matter how much India tries to ignore it, it would simply have to deal with the country, if not today then tomorrow. The Indian delegation was clear that Pakistan needs to be engaged continuously, and not ignored.

Secondly, it was patent that both Pakistan and India need to play a constructive role in the region -- South Asia is much larger than just the two of them. The issues relating to Afghanistan were especially focused on and it was agreed that both countries should work together to promote a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan.

Here again there was recognition that both countries have legitimate stakes in Afghanistan, but that an unstable Afghanistan is dangerous for both. The unison with which both delegations spoke about the increasing threat of ISIS in Afghanistan showed their realisation that they need to work together in Afghanistan rather than undermine each other. At the moment Afghan negotiations with the Taliban are underway but the announcement of the death of Mulla Omar has raised problems, therefore it is even more imperative now that both Pakistan and India devise a joint strategy to ensure stability in Afghanistan. They certainly need to talk more and keep talking on this.

Thirdly, on the question of terrorism, there was no disagreement. Both countries have been and are victims of terrorism, and both recognised that only a joint mechanism will enable us to deal with the menace. Very importantly the declaration called for more cooperation between the intelligence networks of both countries, since without that no counter-terrorism strategy can work.

The call for creating permanent mechanism, which cannot be adversely affected by untoward incidents, was key to the suggestions. Both sides also recognised that there were legal issues with bringing people to justice. Therefore they called on the adoption of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty so that terror suspects are speedily brought to justice, through intelligence sharing etc.

What leads from this, and which in Pakistan’s case is particularly important, is that our legal system is based on a flawed law of evidence. Our laws were framed by the British using elements of common law which is simply alien in our region. Many a times I have read reports by magistrates writing in the nineteenth century complaining that they were working under a system which assumed that people tell the truth after swearing on their holy book.

The reality, just as the British civil servants got to know, was and is very different here. Further, what constitutes evidence needs to be reformed too. Hence, a radical legal rethink needs to be undertaken, in both countries, for us to deal with not only the menace of terrorism but also other crimes which seldom get sentenced due to the weakness of our system.

Lastly, the joint declaration emphasised that alternative narratives need to be devised so as to counter the one sided and often simply untrue histories taught on both sides of the border. I was a part of a task force to suggest ways in which the aforementioned aim could be realised along with Professor Salima Hashmi. On the Indian side were Dr Pallavi Raghavan and Ms Shoma Chaudhury.

While going into the task force meetings, I wondered how we would be able to bridge this ever-widening chasm. But when we began to talk, all of us realised how much all of us wanted such narratives -- which have only bred misunderstandings, hatred and chauvinism -- changed. Very early in our deliberations, we agreed that the only way to improve relations between India and Pakistan in the long term was by dispelling the misconceptions about each other in the other country.

It is these misconceptions, which are drilled into the minds of children early on in school, and it is then these same people who posture at official meetings decades later. If these children are taught a more complex and nuanced history of the region then perhaps we can hope for better understanding and co-existence.

We agreed that our aim was not to be ‘peace-niks’ and brush aside our differences -- after all we have been separate countries for nearly seventy years and even just that has created differences -- but show how we can still cooperate despite our complicated history (though here I am reminded of how I went off talking about the Punjab which someone from Indian Punjab, and the chair commented ‘Here go the Punjabis again!’).

We also agreed to showcase how the conflict between India and Pakistan is not unique in the world -- from Ireland to Palestine, Korea and other regions, partition and a bitter history is a part of many regions and countries. However, this does not mean that we have to live like this and cannot create mechanisms to improve understanding and cooperation.

Looking back at the Chaophraya Dialogue in the wake of independence day celebrated in both India and Pakistan over the weekend, one thing remains certain: both countries are here to stay and if the governments of both countries aim to improve the pitiable condition of the masses they must learn to co-exist and cooperate. There is simply no option.