Indo-Pak stand-off

India's Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar on the occasion of QUAD meeting held in Washington DC the other day again challenged President Donald Trump's claim of brokering ceasefire between Pakistan and India after the May 7-10 military conflict between them. In an interview with Newsweek, Jaishankar said, "I can tell you that I was in the room when Vice-President JD Vance spoke to Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi on the night of May 9. There was no linking of trade and ceasefire."

Two months after the four-day war, India is still in a denial mode, as Jaishankar went on to say that "later that day, Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations, Major General Kashif Abdullah, directly contacted his Indian counterpart to request a ceasefire", and that was how the standoff was managed. Trump has, however, repeatedly taken credit for the ceasefire and offered mediation on the Kashmir conflict. Pakistan, endorsing the American president's stance on ceasefire, has welcomed his offer to mediate on the Kashmir conflict despite the fact that since the singing of Shimla pact of July 1972, New Delhi has been against any external role over its unresolved issues with Islamabad.

For how long will the Indo-Pak standoff continue and will New Delhi assert its position in the White House and Capitol Hill? Will the once influential Indian lobby in Washington DC re-establish its clout in the American policymaking circles? Or the Modi regime needs to transform its approach on terrorism and instead of blaming Pakistan without any evidence pursue a policy on pragmatic lines?

As long as Modi and Trump differ on their stance on the ceasefire and mediation, there is a marginal likelihood of a patch-up between the two. It also means the US will continue to equate India with Pakistan. New Delhi believes that in view of the power asymmetry between India and Pakistan, America should not consider the two countries equal and should give it more weightage. When the US gives special treatment to Pakistan, hurting India's pride and ego, it means the failure of Indian diplomacy.

Indian media was critical of the US when President Trump invited Prime Minister Modi to the White House after the G-7 summit in Canada at a time when he had also invited Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir. Considering it a clever move on the part of Trump to arrange a meeting between the two powerful men in the White House, Modi politely refused the invitation. Calling himself a 'man of peace', Trump seeks to arrange a meeting between the leaders of the two hostile countries as part of a strategy to strengthen his claim to earn the Nobel peace prize. But Trump's hopes were dashed when India openly contradicted his claim of brokering ceasefire, thereby averting a nuclear showdown in South Asia.

Trump had initially ruled out any US role in defusing the Indo-Pak tension, but later in a tweet took the credit for arranging ceasefire - something the reflects a U-turn in his approach. Also, in the case of the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last month, Trump initially made it clear that America was not behind the Israeli attack on Iran. But later on, he took credit for the ceasefire between the two warring countries. Iran firmly rejected Trump's claim that the US attack obliterated its nuclear installations. Nevertheless, Trump tried to give the impression that it was he who stopped the war between the two adversaries. In reality, he failed to end the Russo-Ukrainian war and the war in Gaza contrary to the promises he made during his election campaign.

The de-escalation in the May 7-10 Indo-Pak conflict needs to be examined from three angles.

First, both India and Pakistan knew that further escalation of the conflict would have lethal consequences. As a result, the DGMOs of the two countries agreed to a ceasefire which was done via the hotline established several decades ago between New Delhi and Islamabad as an essential military CBM. It means India preferred having a direct contact with Pakistan instead of relying on President Trump's ceasefire efforts. How far Pakistan will subscribe to the Indian stance of a direct contact to deescalate the conflict remains to be seen. When the Indo-Pak border tension was at its peak following the attack on the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001 and around half a million troops from both sides were in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation, it was the direct communication between Islamabad and New Delhi which helped defuse the tension leading to the withdrawal of the forces from the border. But, one needs to bear in mind that during those days, Atal Behari Vajpayee was the Indian prime minister who acted as a statesman and his pragmatic approach was reciprocated by President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Ironically, today India is led by Modi who has acute dislike for Pakistan which provide space to extremist elements in New Delhi.

Second, Prime Minister Modi is repeatedly saying that Operation Sindoor is not yet over and Pakistan will be taught a lesson if there is another alleged act of terrorism, but the momentum which existed after the May 7-10 conflict is over and the world is not going to intervene again in case of another Indian adventure against Pakistan. Modi is trying to keep the momentum going and the assertion of Rajnath Singh, the Indian defense minister, to use Indian navy to cut off Pakistan's supply chain from the port of Karachi is tantamount to a stern warning to Islamabad. Pakistan has been constantly offering India dialogue to sort out issues instead of pursuing a jingoistic approach. Indian opposition parties, including Congress, are also highly critical of the Modi regime for its mishandling of the crisis with Pakistan. Poor performance of Indian air force and India's failure to teach Pakistan a lesson following the Pahalgam attack expose New Delhi's capability to launch another adventure against its western neighbour.

Third, defusing any future standoff between India and Pakistan would require professional handling of things with better lines of communication. The two neighbours should bear in mind that a slight miscalculation can lead to dangerous consequences.