NEW DELHI/ISLAMABAD, May 12 , India and Pakistan have stepped back
from the brink of all-out war, with a nudge from the U.S., but New
Delhi’s aspirations as a global diplomatic power now face a key test
after President Donald Trump offered to mediate on the dispute over
Kashmir, analysts said.
India’s rapid rise as the world’s fifth-largest economy has boosted its
confidence and clout on the world stage, where it has played an
important role in addressing regional crises such as Sri Lanka’s
economic collapse and the Myanmar earthquake.
But the conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, which flared up in recent
days with exchanges of missiles drones and air strikes that killed at
least 66 people, touches a sensitive nerve in Indian politics, a private
television channel reported Monday.
How India threads the diplomatic needle – courting favour with Trump
over issues like trade while asserting its own interests in the Kashmir
conflict – will depend in large part on domestic politics and could
determine the future prospects for conflict in Kashmir.
“India … is likely not keen on the broader talks (that the ceasefire)
calls for. Upholding it will pose challenges,” said Michael Kugelman, a
South Asia analyst based in Washington.
The ceasefire, Kugelman noted, was “cobbled together hastily” when
tensions were at their peak.
Trump said that following the ceasefire, “I am going to increase trade,
substantially, with both of these great nations”.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for his part, has not commented
publicly on the conflict since it began.
“By agreeing to abort under U.S. persuasion … just three days of
military operations, India is drawing international attention to the
Kashmir dispute, not to Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism that triggered
the crisis,” said Brahma Chellaney, an Indian defence analyst.
Trump’s proposal to work towards a solution to the Kashmir problem,
along with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s declaration that India
and Pakistan would start talks on their broader issues at a neutral
site, has irked many Indians.
Pakistan has repeatedly thanked Trump for his offer on Kashmir, while
India has not acknowledged any role played by a third party in the
ceasefire, saying it was agreed by the two sides themselves.
Analysts and Indian opposition parties are already questioning whether
New Delhi met its strategic objectives by launching missiles into
Pakistan on Wednesday last week, which it said were in retaliation for
an attack last month on tourists in Kashmir that killed 26 men. It
blamed the attack on Pakistan – a charge that Islamabad denied.
By launching missiles deep into Pakistan, Modi showed a much higher
appetite for risk than his predecessors. But the sudden ceasefire
exposed him to rare criticism at home.
Swapan Dasgupta, a former lawmaker from Modi’s Hindu nationalist
Bharatiya Janata Party, said the ceasefire had not gone down well in
India partly because “Trump suddenly appeared out of nowhere and
pronounced his verdict”.
The main opposition Congress party got in on the act, demanding an
explanation from the government on the “ceasefire announcements made
from Washington, D.C.” “Have we opened the doors to third-party
mediation?” asked Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh.
And while the fighting has stopped, there remain a number of flashpoints
in the relationship that will test India’s resolve and may tempt it to
adopt a hard-line stance.
The top issue for Pakistan, diplomats and government officials there
said, would be the Indus Waters Treaty, which India suspended last month
but which is a vital source of water for many of Pakistan’s farms and
hydropower plants.
“Pakistan would not have agreed (to a ceasefire) without U.S. guarantees
of a broader dialogue,” said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a former foreign
minister and currently chairman of the People’s Party of Pakistan, which
supports the government.
Moeed Yusuf, former Pakistan National Security Advisor, said a broad
agreement would be needed to break the cycle of brinksmanship over
Kashmir.
“Because the underlying issues remain, and every six months, one year,
two years, three years, something like this happens and then you are
back at the brink of war in a nuclear environment,” he said