Critical reasoning — dialogue with neighbours to reduce cross-border tension: Should India engage neighbouring countries in talks to curb cross-border tension and terrorism, weighing the view that dialogue is the only effective way to reduce violence against the concern that neighbours may be unreliable and continue subversive activities?

Given data

• Statement: Engage in dialogue to stop cross-border tension?
• Argument I (Yes): Dialogue is (claimed as) the only way to reduce terrorism and save lives.
• Argument II (No): Neighbours are unreliable and may still act subversively.

Concept/Approach (de-escalation and diplomacy)
Even acknowledging risks, initiating dialogue is a constructive, proportionate step to reduce tensions; rejecting talks solely due to potential bad faith forecloses peaceful avenues.

Step-by-Step evaluation
1) Argument I: Promotes peaceful conflict-management; despite the 'only way' phrasing, it remains the most viable and responsible approach ⇒ strong.2) Argument II: Non-reliability risk does not logically negate attempting talks; verification and safeguards can accompany dialogue ⇒ weak.

Verification/Alternative
Standard practice couples dialogue with deterrence/monitoring; thus refusing talks outright is not justified by mere suspicion.

Common pitfalls
Treating uncertainty as proof that engagement is futile; ignoring confidence-building measures.

Final Answer
Only argument I is strong.