Asymmetrical military dialogue between India and Pakistan is breeding fresh doubts about strategic symmetry, credibility, and long-term faith. Even as weapons grow silent following a tense week along the Line of Control, India’s Lt Gen Rajeev Ghai and Pakistan’s Maj Gen-level DGMO will have their second dialogue on ceasefire.
But this asymmetry of military rank still betrays a deeper diplomacy asymmetry—one which may determine results on and off the battlefield.
Fragile Ceasefire on Uneven Ground
India and Pakistan negotiated a ceasefire on May 10, halting all military action by land, air, and sea from 5 PM onwards. Pakistan made the first overtures, and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri verified the offer. It was a turning point for de-escalation following India’s retaliatory strikes on terrorist bases and military installations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Even as the government made the announcement, Pakistan returned to firing hours later. It puts in doubt the sustainability of these talks, particularly when reciprocal trust is thin.
DGMO Talks: Important but Imbalanced
DGMO-level discussions began in earnest after the 1971 war. They became vital after the 1999 war at Kargil. Regular contact and emergency talks prevent the situation from escalating. But India always dispatches a Lt Gen, while Pakistan sends a lesser-ranked Maj Gen.
This disparity is not figurative—it counts. India’s DGMO directs general-operational strategies. He is directly responsible to the Army Chief. Pakistan’s DGMO is under stricter command and enjoys less room to maneuver. This disconnect provides India more leeway, but also distorts the dialogue.
Rank Disparity Sends Mixed Signals
A superior Indian rank may appear as eagerness or concession. It may allow Pakistan to spin the situation as India requiring talks more. Internally, it questions the Pakistani officer’s credibility to deliver or commit.
Perception determines outcomes in military diplomacy. Global players such as NATO, Russia, the US, and China equate military ranks during negotiations. They do so to ensure equality to uphold mutual respect and successful negotiation.
India Can—and Should—Recalibrate
India has rebalanced ranks in other negotiations earlier, including with rebellion groups. It can repeat the same here. India may deputise a Maj Gen, rather than a Lt Gen, for talks with Pakistan. A Maj Gen also carries some weight and clout. For the normal talks, even a Brigadier would be suitable.
This would not dilute India’s standing. It would level the table, cut posturing, and enable concentrated tactical deliberations. India would still maintain Lt Gen-level representation for high-risk affairs.
Symbol of Strength, Not Weakness
Equality of ranks reflects decisiveness, not weakness. It demonstrates India’s maturity and assurance. It enables building actual dialogue rather than disparity of power. The present uneven format cannot withstand substantive building of trust.
If India desires outcomes on the ground, it needs to have equality at the table. That is, speaking as equals, not as dominants. Pakistan also needs to step up—if it wants peace, it should align ranks and seriousness accordingly.
In military diplomacy, form is important. Trust starts not only with ceasefires—but with who is across the table.
