Opinion | Trump Is So, So Wrong In Lumping India And Pakistan Together

Trump seems to enjoy shooting diplomatic missiles in all directions without adequate thought given to the consequences. He has an urge to take credit for success in whatever he does, however premature or unmerited it may be. He may not be ill-intentioned, but his initiatives for peace are cluttered with exaggerated claims, from which he is also willing to step back and take a different tack without worrying about his credibility or loss of political face.

As he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world, what he says cannot be ignored. He has to be humoured, particularly as he is egoistic and self-absorbed and can take impulsive decisions to prove his mettle. This he calls the 'art of the deal'.

Giving A Pass To Pakistan

He has taken India by surprise by the position he has taken on our recent military showdown with Pakistan following the heinous terrorist attack sponsored by that country in Pahalgam. This attack occurred while the US Vice-President, JD Vance, was still on a visit to India. It followed past patterns, where Pakistan would carry out its attacks such that they coincided with major US visits to India, the aim being to bring American and international attention to the "unresolved" Kashmir issue. Pakistan knows from past experience that the US has tolerated its terrorist acts even when they are directed at American interests, never seriously punishing Pakistan for them.

Given Trump's views on Islamic extremism - as well as those of Vance, and, not to mention, of Tulsi Gabbard - the willingness to give Pakistan a pass on its sponsorship of terrorism against India, including the Pahalgam attack, lacks a logical explanation. No doubt the Pahalgam assault was condemned by the US and others, but it means little from India's point of view if they did not take cognisance of Pakistan's role in it.

The Vague UNSC Statement

This is partially true of the UN Security Council press statement, too. With Pakistan being a member of the UNSC currently, it would not have been possible to obtain a statement that would point a direct finger at it, though there is an indirect one being pointed when the statement calls for "the need to hold perpetrators, organisers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice", and stresses that "those responsible for these killings should be held accountable, and urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate actively with all relevant authorities in this regard".

The G7 statement is also rather unsatisfactory from India's point of view. Some of these countries are members of the Quad, and we have strong strategic ties with others, such as France. The UK would have no doubt worked hard to shield Pakistan. The US stance to ignore the terrorism aspect and focus on de-escalation and a ceasefire would also have no doubt influenced the language of the G7 statement, which ignores the root cause of India's military operation against Pakistan: the unpardonable terrorist attack at Pahalgam. The G7 statement condemns the attack, but, objectionably, equates India and Pakistan on all counts by urging both sides to exercise maximum restraint, stating that military escalation posed a serious threat to regional stability, calling for immediate de-escalation, encouraging both countries to engage in a direct dialogue, and expressing deep concerns about the safety of civilians on both sides and support for a swift and lasting diplomatic solution.

The Myth Of A 'Diplomatic Solution'

It is not clear how a "diplomatic solution" can be found to the problem of terrorism. India has tried the diplomatic option by engaging in a prolonged composite dialogue with Pakistan. That ended with the 2008 Mumbai attack, then resumed after that, and finally collapsed again after more terror attacks from Pakistan. The US and most other G7 members have used military force in their "war on terror" in West Asia, leading to huge and lasting regional instability. As regards the safety of civilians, the less said the better about G7 concerns, given what is happening in the West Asian region and in parts of Africa.

The US position on the India-Pakistan confrontation after the Pahalgam attack has been perplexing, and, in many ways, potentially damaging to the dynamic of India-US ties. In 2019, after the Pulwama attack, Trump had acknowledged India's right to self-defence. This time, in his initial comments, it appeared that Trump was willing to distance himself from the situation and let India sort it out. Vance went further in stating that "what we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit, but we're not going to get involved in the middle of war that's fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it." Vance added that because the US could force neither side to lay down their arms, the US would "continue to pursue this thing through diplomatic channels".

From Indifference To Hyperactivity

The jump from this relatively disengaged position to not only becoming hyperactive behind the scenes but also announcing a ceasefire - much before India and Pakistan announced it bilaterally - is an embarrassment for India in many ways. It diminishes India by giving the impression that New Delhi succumbed to US pressure, whereas India, right from the start, has followed a strategy that had de-escalation built into it. By attacking only terrorist hubs in Pakistan and not the country's military infrastructure, India was leaving the choice to the latter to escalate, which, when it did, India retaliated to by striking at its military infrastructure. India was ready to stop there had Pakistan shown a readiness to de-escalate. India's purpose had been served by changing the paradigm of its reaction to Pakistan's use of terrorism by a readiness to attack its military heartland in retaliation, notwithstanding Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and warning of robust retribution in the future if Pakistan continued to sponsor terrorism against India.

Dangling The Trade Bait

India has tried to ignore US claims by stating, at Prime Minister Narendra Modi's level too, that a beaten Pakistan, through its DGMO, approached the Indian DGMO to seek a ceasefire. But Trump has gone on to indulge in his habitual loose talk about forcing a ceasefire on the two countries, without giving thought to its diplomatic and political fall-out for India. He has continued to equate India and Pakistan in their relationship with the US and has offered mediation to resolve the Kashmir issue, disregarding the Simla Agreement and India's long-standing refusal to accept any third-party role in India-Pakistan issues. He has also stated that he had effectively threatened to end trade with the two countries, and that he would reward both with increased trade after they agreed to the ceasefire.
This trade threat, which he probably did not quite mean in the way it has sounded, is absurd.

America's trade with Pakistan was $7.4 billion in 2024, far less than India's $200 billion. Some on the Indian side could argue that if Trump can so loosely threaten to use trade as a lever, could he also use the developing defence ties as a lever if ever geopolitical differences developed between the two countries. From talking about US mediation during his Riyadh visit, telling India and Pakistan not to trade in nuclear missiles, conjuring up the possibility of millions dead in a nuclear exchange, to remarking that India and Pakistan were getting along, publicly lauding Secretary of State Rubio for his role in establishing a ceasefire, and remarking casually that maybe the US could get India and Pakistan to go out and have a "nice dinner" together, Trump has engaged in patronising talk.

India may now have to work out anew its strategy to deal with Trump. Some visible pushback may be required.

(Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author