Few things reflect the changing contours of Indo-Pak diplomacy better than the extraordinary tweets of President Donald Trump claiming credit for “mediating” a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in the conflict that had erupted with Indian reprisals, starting May 7, for the terrorist outrage in Pahalgam on April 22.
The tensions between India and Pakistan have long been a focal point in South Asian geopolitics. While Pakistani apologists have attempted to frame India’s actions as aggressive, India’s position is fundamentally defensive: as a status quo power that prefers to focus on its own growth and development in peace, India does not seek conflict, but is compelled to respond to persistent cross-border terrorism.
Through careful diplomatic and strategic decisions, India responded to the Pahalgam attack in a calibrated manner, targeting terrorist bases rather than civilian areas, doing so at night to minimise collateral damage to civilians, and avoiding all Pakistani government and military installations. The signal was clear: India’s operations are not offensive in nature, but precise responses to terrorist activities originating from Pakistan. They were portrayed from the start as a one-off retaliation rather than the opening salvo in a protracted war. This distinction is crucial in establishing India’s intent—defence, rather than escalation.
Pakistan’s response was disproportionate, as befits a revisionist power with territorial ambitions over India’s Jammu and Kashmir, actively sponsoring terrorist activities to destabilise India. Such provocations compel India to adopt a stance of calibrated resilience, ensuring that threats are countered without escalating into full-scale war. When Pakistan indiscriminately shelled Indian civil areas, India shelled back; when it sent swarms of Turkish drones and Chinese missiles against Indian cities and air bases, India responded by attacks on Pakistani military bases. India’s restraint suggested throughout that the responsibility for de-escalation lies squarely with Pakistan—if you hit us, we will hit you back hard; if you stop, we will stop.
It is this asymmetry of approach that the Trump tweets failed to acknowledge. India has continuously expressed its preference for peaceful coexistence, focusing on internal development rather than territorial conflict. Despite numerous provocations, India has exercised patience, demonstrating a willingness to pursue diplomatic resolutions—provided Pakistan dismantles its terrorist infrastructure.
Additionally, India’s nuclear policy reflects its commitment to regional stability. Unlike Pakistan’s dangerous stance, implying it could resort to a first use of nuclear weapons if it felt the need, India adheres to a ‘no first use’ doctrine, reinforcing its intent to avoid unnecessary aggression. This policy is a testament to India’s strategic maturity and unwillingness to engage in reckless confrontation.
Trump’s pronouncement on May 10 concerning the ceasefire presents a complex and potentially delicate moment in the landscape of South Asian diplomacy and, particularly, within the evolving US-India relationship. The statement—which lauded both nations with seemingly equal emphasis for a ceasefire purportedly facilitated by American mediation—reveals the inherent challenges of navigating the region’s intricate geopolitical dynamics. By framing India and Pakistan in a manner that suggests parity, and by concurrently offering promises of enhanced trade and a willingness to engage with the longstanding Kashmir dispute, the statement appears to deviate from the established understanding of India’s strategic significance within the US foreign policy framework. Specifically, the statement’s implication that the US played a mediating role in the cessation of hostilities strikes a discordant note in the otherwise harmonious symphony of US-India relations.
Trump’s post is disappointing for India in four important ways. First, it implies a false equivalence between the victim and the perpetrator, and seemingly overlooks the US’s own past unwavering stance against Pakistan’s well-documented links to cross-border terrorism. Second, it offers Pakistan a negotiating framework which it certainly has not earned. India will never negotiate with a terrorist’s gun pointed at its head. Third, it ‘internationalises’ the Kashmir dispute, an obvious objective of the terrorists. India sees the problem as an internal affair. It has never requested, nor is likely to seek, any foreign country’s mediation over its problems with Pakistan. And fourth, it ‘re-hyphenates’ India and Pakistan in the global imagination. For decades, world leaders had been encouraged not to club their visits to India with visits to Pakistan, and starting with President Clinton in 2000, no US president has done so. This is a major backward step.
India, a critical strategic partner in the US’s broader efforts to counterbalance China’s growing influence, occupies a distinct position in the American strategic calculus. Trump needs to be better briefed before he undermines decades of evolving Indo-US cooperation by issuing statements without fully appreciating their implications.
India acknowledges the global significance of stability in South Asia and welcomes constructive engagement from international partners. But it will brook no foreign interference. The government is buoyed in its response by the strong domestic support. National unity remains a driving force behind the government’s strategic choices, reinforcing the legitimacy of its actions in countering external threats. The responsibility for lasting peace ultimately rests on Pakistan taking definitive steps toward ending cross-border hostilities.
At the same time, despite this uncharacteristic dissonance, the situation is not entirely devoid of mitigating factors. The US’s implicit recognition of India’s evolving strategic doctrine, which treats acts of terrorism as a legitimate casus belli, provides a crucial counterpoint. This tacit acknowledgement suggests a degree of alignment on the crucial issue of counterterrorism, a shared concern that has historically served as a cornerstone of the US-India partnership. In the complex tapestry of diplomacy, where nuance and strategic foresight are paramount, the interplay of these factors suggests the current dissonance, while awkward, is likely to manifest as a momentary ripple rather than a fundamental rupture.
The enduring strategic imperatives that underpin the US-India relationship, including shared interests in regional stability, counterterrorism, and the containment of China’s influence, are likely to continue to serve as powerful anchors, ensuring its long-term resilience. While the immediate aftermath of Trump’s statement reveals a potential for diplomatic friction, the underlying strategic alignment between the two nations and the important influence of the Indian-American diaspora suggest the relationship will ultimately weather this challenge, albeit with a renewed emphasis on clearer communication and mutual understanding.
(Views are personal)
(office@tharoor.in)
Shashi Tharoor | Fourth-term Lok Sabha MP from Thiruvananthapuram and the Sahitya Akademi winning author of 24 books, most recently Ambedkar: A Life
