Turkey’s latest reference to Jammu and Kashmir at the United Nations General Assembly has once again brought an old diplomatic disagreement into focus. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said disputes in South Asia, including Kashmir, should be addressed through dialogue under the UN Charter and relevant resolutions. India has rejected the reference as unwarranted, maintaining that matters concerning its territorial integrity and sovereignty leave no locus standi for an external party. The central issue is not whether dialogue is desirable. Dialogue is always preferable to confrontation. The question is who has a legitimate role in addressing a bilateral dispute. New Delhi’s long-standing position is that India-Pakistan differences should be addressed bilaterally, while India has also maintained that terrorism cannot be separated from the question of meaningful engagement with Pakistan. A multilateral platform such as the UN General Assembly provides countries an opportunity to articulate their positions on international issues. But repeated references to a sensitive bilateral matter can complicate rather than facilitate diplomatic engagement. Kashmir has a long and complex history, but reducing it to a recurring line in international speeches does little to address the practical challenges faced by the people of the region. India’s response, therefore, places emphasis on sovereignty and the principle of bilateral engagement. That position is consistent with New Delhi’s stated diplomatic approach over the years. India has repeatedly opposed third-party mediation on Kashmir and cited the Simla Agreement as the framework for bilateral engagement with Pakistan. At the same time, diplomacy demands restraint. Differences between nations are better managed through established diplomatic channels than through public exchanges at international forums. Turkey and India have their own substantial economic, cultural and people-to-people ties. Such relationships can benefit from keeping contentious bilateral issues from overshadowing broader cooperation. The UN should remain a forum for dialogue, peace and international cooperation. But dialogue is most productive when it respects the sovereignty of states and the established mechanisms through which disputes are addressed. Kashmir needs development, stability, investment and peace. Its future should not become a recurring rhetorical theme in international speeches. The focus should remain on constructive engagement, regional stability and the well-being of its people.