Trump Cannot 'Broker' Kashmir or Indo-Pak Conflicts, MEA Must Say So

Indian diplomacy cannot be timid out of consideration for Trump and his administration, writes Vivek Katju.

The contents of the US observations on the ongoing tensions and ceasefire in the subcontinent are contrary to India’s traditional approaches towards Pakistan.

(Photo: Kamran Akhter/The Quint)

In all India-Pakistani crises, the major powers, especially the United States, seek to prevent the breakout of armed conflict and, if that occurs, achieve earliest ceasefire between the two countries.

This has been particularly the case since India and Pakistan carried out nuclear tests in 1998. It was witnessed during the Kargil conflict, the Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008 (when India chose the diplomatic route), and the Balakot aerial strikes of 2019. In all these instances, the US maintained contact with both sides and, after the crisis was over, hinted at the role it had played, but went no further.

This has not been the case in the ceasefire that was agreed upon between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan on 10 May to stop armed action following the launch of Operation Sindoor by India in the early hours of 7 May.

Indeed, the US has boasted of its role through two posts of US President Donald Trump and a formal statement by the US State Department on 10 May. The contents of the US observations are contrary to India’s traditional approaches towards Pakistan.

India has made a feeble attempt to clarify that India and Pakistan were in direct contact and also to deny at least one US claim.

Thus, Doordarshan, in a report on 10 May reported, “The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting confirmed that the ceasefire was a result of direct communication between the two countries. Officials clarified that there is currently no agreement to hold discussions on any other issues at any other location."

However, this report is no substitute for a formal, on the record, MEA statement.

As I write these lines, there has not been, as there should certainly have been, a formal MEA statement to Trump’s posts and the US State Department statement.

Why is it important for the MEA to set the record straight? But before that, what did the State Department and Trump’s posts contain? It is best to quote them fully.

Disruptive Trumpian Diplomacy

Trump’s first post on social media platform Truth Social stated, “After a long 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. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter”.

His second post on the ceasefire was more extensive. “I am very proud of the strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India and Pakistan for having the strength, wisdom, and fortitude to fully know and understand that it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death of so many, and so much. Millions of good and innocent people could have died! Your legacy is greatly enhanced by your brave actions. I am proud that the USA was able to help you arrive at this historic and heroic decision. While not even discussed, I am going to increase trade, substantially, with both of these great Nations. Additionally, I will work with you both to see if, after a “thousand years”, a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir. God bless the leadership of India and Pakistan on a job well done!”, he wrote.

The US State Department statement of 10 May, Announcing a US-Brokered Ceasefire between India and Pakistan, read as follows:

"Over the past 48 hours, Vice President Vance and I have engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani officials, including Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir, and National Security Advisors Ajit Doval and Asim Malik. I am pleased to announce the Governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to an immediate ceasefire and to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site. We commend Prime Ministers Modi and Sharif on their wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship in choosing the path of peace.” 

Trump and his administration are unconventional. They do not follow diplomatic conventions. They are belligerent towards both partners and adversaries. Their disdain for subtlety or a regard for the political needs of the leaders of the countries they help is obvious.

India is currently engaged in important trade negotiations with the US and needs that country for acquiring technology and also for geopolitical reasons.

However, despite all this India simply cannot allow the posts and statement to pass because they will inevitably impact its global reputation and its stand and diplomacy on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The significance of J&K for Indian interests is obvious.

A formal MEA statement is essential to preserve the "Modi Doctrine" on terrorism that was on display with Operation Sindoor.

5 Red Flags with the US Response

There are five grave direct problems with the posts and the statement made by the US:

Patronising Language

The posts’ patronising language is galling. Trump has treated the leaders of the world’s most populous country, with the fifth largest economy and firm democratic roots, as if his decisions needed to be encouraged and praised. Major powers use the kind of language Trump has about leaders of small states.

India has never accepted patronising from any power since the time of its independence.

It has always put its dignity and independence foremost for that is part of the values that it inherited from the leaders of the Freedom Struggle.

Hyphenating India and Pakistan

Trump has put India and Pakistan on a par. This would be music to the political and army leadership of Pakistan for that is what they have sought since 1947, particularly so now when India is on the path of being recognised as a major power.

This is also unacceptable because Pakistan is a terrorist state with an economy in deep distress. Its governance has almost entirely through its history been either directly or indirectly controlled by the army. Hence, prima facie, to put India and Pakistan in the same bracket is absurd and it is necessary to formally point out that absurdity.

Ignoring India's New Doctrine

By stating that millions could have died in case of an India-Pak escalation, Trump has ignored the 'Modi Doctrine' about which I have written in these columns. The point made by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, that an escalation between nuclear countries begins with a terrorist attack and its corollary that a country has a right to respond to terrorism of a nuclear state through a kinetic strike, has got clouded.

This too needs to be restated forthrightly so that the US and the major powers are reminded that if Pakistan continues to pursue terrorism against India, the Modi Doctrine will be followed. The dangers of escalation therefore lie with Pakistan and the international community now needs to act purposefully against that country, especially its army. 

Kashmir isn't up for Discussion

It is obvious from Trump’s formulation on Kashmir that he is ignorant about the complexities of the issue, its history, and its intricacies. It is, therefore, necessary for India to repudiate his offer straightaway and restate our traditional position on Kashmir, ie, the only path for resolution of the "Kashmir conflict" between India and Pakistan lies through direct bilateral negotiations leading to Pakistan vacating India, territory such as the PoK it considers to be forcibly under its control.

It will be recalled that Pakistan wanted the US to mediate on Kashmir after Pakistan’s Kargil misadventure but President Bill Clinton forthrightly rejected that proposal.

The Word is Mediation, Not 'Brokering'

The State Department statement uses the word “brokered”. The MEA must demolish that claim.

It is traditional for major powers and other countries to engage whenever there are hostilities between parties that threaten their interests. This is part of the global diplomatic process. But India needs to clarify on use of the word “brokered”. As opposed to 'mediation', brokering seems to denote that without the American intervention, India and Pakistan’s direct contacts would not have yielded results. India must strongly clarify this point.

It also should set the record straight on the claim that India and Pakistan have agreed “to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site”.

While back-channel meetings between Indian and Pakistani representatives have taken place, this formulation leans towards the connotation that there will be open meetings at a ‘neutral site’, and more significantly on an unknown ‘broad set of issues’.  

Onus on MEA to Own the Narrative

The MEA is engaged in off-the-record background briefings. These can be no substitute for a formal MEA statement.

Background briefings to establish that India has achieved its military objectives as well as psychological and political aims are not enough. Formal clarifications are needed to Trump’s posts and the State Department statement for they are on the record. Needless to note, Pakistan is delighted by them and its leaders have publicly thanked the US for playing a mediatory role. Indian diplomacy cannot be namby-pamby or timid out of consideration for Trump and his administration.

Will it, under External Affairs Minister, S Jaishankar, who has a wealth of diplomatic and political experience in dealing with the US, rise to the occasion?

(The writer is a former Secretary [West], Ministry of External Affairs. He can be reached @VivekKatju. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)