US Mediation in India-Pak Conflict Could Be a Double-Edged Sword

In the wake of statements by American leaders like Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have claimed that they mediated the India-Pakistan ceasefire, New Delhi remained silent, using unidentified sources to claim that the ceasefire was a result of bilateral contact between the Directors General Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan. On Monday, however Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted in his address to the nation that it was due to the bilateral contact. He did not even mention Trump in his address.

But New Delhi has to cope with the public positions taken by Washington. As it is, Modi did not discuss the role of the US in the ceasefire, something that the Americans claimed they had mediated. He also insisted that the ceasefire was conditional on the behaviour of Pakistan.

On Monday, speaking at the White House on the eve of his visit to Qatar, Trump declared "My administration helped broker a full and immediate ceasefire, I think a permanent one, between India and Pakistan, ending a dangerous conflict of two nations with lots of nuclear weapons." After praising the leaderships of the two countries Trump claimed that it was the prospects of trade that would open up with the US that was used as leverage with both of them.

The American claims of mediating the ceasefire in the India-Pakistan conflict could prove to be a double edged sword for India. New Delhi has long adopted a policy of refusing to accept any third party mediation on Kashmir. Basing itself on the Simla Agreement’s clause II, it has called on Pakistan to resolve it through bilateral talks.

The problem with the American claim is that now it runs headlong into Modi’s assertion that India will not talk to Pakistan on any other issue but terror and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) – presumably the return of that part of Kashmir to India. In this scenario, India-Pakistan relations appear to be setting into a deep-freeze and it's unlikely that the US can do anything about it.

If anything, the US's role in the crisis seems to have muddied its course rather than provide some clarity. President Trump was the first to announce the India-Pakistan ceasefire, an indicator of the primary role it played in de-escalating the conflict. In the hours leading to the announcement, the conflict had actually escalated with India carrying out strikes against an array of Pakistani air bases.

Around 5.30 pm IST on Saturday, Trump announced on his social media platform Truth Social “After a night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.”

Shortly after that Rubio issued a statement: “Vice President Vance and I have engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani officials, including Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, Union external affairs minister S. Jaishankar, Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir and National Security Advisors Ajit Doval and Asim Malik.” As a result of this, he noted the two countries had agreed to an immediate ceasefire “and to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.”

Earlier on May 7, after the Indian strikes, which Trump termed “a shame”, he expressed hope that the fighting would end quickly. He stated that he wanted both nations to work it out and offered assistance “I know both very well, and I want to see them work it out” Trump said, adding, “And if I can do anything to help, I will. I will be there.”

It is difficult to avoid the implications of Trump’s Truth Social post on Sunday (May 11). He confirmed the belief the US was motivated by the spectre of nuclear war noting “it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many… millions of people could have died.” Besides promising to increase trade with both, he said that “I will work with you both to see if, after “thousand years” a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir.”

History

The US approach to India-Pakistan crises has varied. In 1947, the US consciously allowed the UK to take the lead in dealing with the situation since it had little experience in the region. In 1965, involved in Vietnam, it gave India-Pakistan issues a miss by simply putting embargoes on both of them. In 1971, Washington openly favoured Islamabad to the extent of sending an armada into the Bay of Bengal to coerce India into a ceasefire.

But things changed in the Kargil war of 1999. When Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif rushed to Washington to seek mediation, he was told that Pakistan would have to withdraw from the positions it has occupied across the LoC.

The US played a key role in promoting de-escalation in the wake of the so-called “Twin Peaks crisis” in the wake of the terror attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001, and following the Mumbai terror attack of 2008. In the first case, it was motivated by the need for Pakistani cooperation in Afghanistan, in the second the motivating factor was the growing strategic ties with India. The bottom line in both cases was the importance of ensuring that there is no all out war between two nuclear armed countries.

India has had the unfortunate experience of US mediation in the wake of the China war of 1962 when the US and UK forced mediation on India and Pakistan. Several rounds of talks were held between the two countries in late 1962 and 1963. Various proposals came up here, including the partition of the valley of Kashmir. Eventually over-reach by the Pakistani delegation, led by Z.A. Bhutto led to India calling off the talks. What infuriated Nehru was an intervention by US ambassador J.K. Galbraith, who, at one stage, proposed the division of the Valley along the Jhelum.

Trump era

The first Trump administration was also active following the Pulwama attack in February, 2019. The US along with UAE and Saudi Arabia played a key role in obtaining the release of the Indian pilot whose aircraft was shot down, an action that helped de-escalate the situation.

What has been significant is Trump’s current language towards Pakistan and India where he now comfortably equates the two. He claims he knows “both well” and is keen to work out their “1,000 year” problem.

On April 25, when he inaccurately noted that the Indians and Pakistanis had fought over Kashmir for 1,000 years, he also noted “I am very close to India and I am very close to Pakistan.”

Back in 2017, he was much harsher. In a 2017 speech outlining US policy in Afghanistan, Trump had said that 20-US designated foreign terrorist organisations were active in Pakistan and that the country “often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror.” As part of the changed approach in dealing with Pakistan, Trump has noted that the US would work to increase ties with India.

So, in Trump’s approach to India and Pakistan, that dreaded “hyphenation” that dogged India in the past is back and that could not be too comfortable to South Block.

Mediation

New Delhi is unlikely to accept any American mediation, it doesn’t need to. Its performance in the recent India-Pakistan conflict has been quite effective and notwithstanding the propaganda, it has given Islamabad/Rawalpindi a hard time. The problem for the Pakistanis is the anger of the jihadis who were hit quite hard in the first day’s strike. That is why so many uniformed personnel participated in their funeral in Muridke, near Lahore.

But given Trump’s personality, New Delhi has to move with care. It does not want to push the US towards Pakistan. More importantly, India is still negotiating a trade deal with the US which could prove beneficial for the country.

Manoj Joshi is a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in Delhi.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.