The complete political consensus over how to deal with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack seems to be withering away faster than expected. From extending complete and unconditional support to the government, Congress, the principal opposition party, has started raising questions. And rightly so, as the opposition is expected to seek answers to the questions that are in everybody’s mind across the country.
However, the opposition party appears to have taken a misplaced stand over a statement, rather a social media post by US President Donald Trump, where he said that the US brokered/ mediated the ceasefire between the two warring countries, India and Pakistan. Although nowhere did he mention that he had offered to mediate between the two countries on the issue of Kashmir, the Congress has started questioning and cornering the government over “internationalising” of the Kashmir dispute on the premise that two countries have agreed in the Shimla Agreement that Kashmir is a bilateral issue and no third party mediation or interference will be accepted.
‘Kashmir’ and the ‘ceasefire’ are two different issues. First, it was the cessation of hostilities between two nuclear power states, India and Pakistan that was to be immediately sorted out. There was a risk of the hostilities spiralling out of control, particularly in view of open Chinese support to a crashing and collapsing Pakistan. The US apparently apprehended that a full-fledged war might lead to a nuclear conflagration, although it was a remote possibility.
So when the US President announced on his social media platform that India and Pakistan had agreed to a ceasefire that was mediated by the US, there was nothing factually incorrect about that.
Trump, otherwise, is known for taking indiscreet liberty with facts, like saying that the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan was there for “1000” years, when Pakistan came into existence just 77 years ago.
The Congress contention is that why did the US President announce the ceasefire and why not India and Pakistan? The party has been trying to suggest that Prime Minister Narendra Modi succumbed to US pressure.
Known for making brash comments without caring about their consequences for the people and countries about whom these statements are made, Trump said that he threatened both the countries about the trade and they agreed to the ceasefire. Such statements are rarely made or heard in diplomacy. But Trump has his own rules he plays with.
It does not require any deep or insightful knowledge about strategic or diplomatic affairs that “a ceasefire will always need to be brokered and mediated by a third party only”. It is common sense that if the two countries were on such terms that they can directly negotiate with each other, why would they then go for war against each other? Someone had to “mediate” the ceasefire.
In fact, in this case it was not the US alone. Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, with all of whom both the countries have good and cordial relations, also helped in breaking the ice. They had started initial back channel parleys to avoid and restrain further hostilities lest they spiral into a full-fledged war. Unlike Trump, who is obsessively fond of claiming credit even for things he does not do, the Saudis and Iranians did not make any noise.
That way the ceasefire was obviously brokered and mediated by third party/ parties. And there is nothing wrong about it. It was not for the first time that the ceasefire between India and Pakistan was mediated by third party/ parties. It happened during the Kargil War and as is being gradually revealed, even in the aftermath of the 2019 ‘surgical strikes’ following the Pulwama terror attack.
Also read: Recognise China as hostile nation, impose tariffs on imports
As regards Kashmir, India’s position has always been crystal clear that it will not accept any third party mediation. The position remains firm and steadfast. Although Trump has not made any direct offer to help in settling the issue, even if he does, it will obviously get bluntly refused and rejected by India. No government in India can ever accept that. India’s position has been reiterated and reaffirmed from time to time that Kashmir is an integral part of India and Pakistan has illegally occupied some parts of it.
In February 1994, there was a unanimous resolution passed in the parliament reiterating and reaffirming the country's resolve to get back the illegally occupied part of Kashmir from Pakistan. India maintains and asserts that the only pending issue is the return of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan has to vacate it at all costs.
The Congress is trying to mix up the two things - Kashmir and the ceasefire. Ceasefire is a momentary issue, which has been reached for the time being. Kashmir is a long pending issue, which India has consistently and repeatedly maintained, is a bilateral issue and no third party mediation will be accepted. India’s position still remains the same. Anyone making any remarks of his own, even if he happens to be the US President, will not alter India’s stance and position. And it certainly does not “internationalise” the Kashmir issue.
Congress’ apprehension is that the ruling BJP will politically exploit India’s decisive action over Pakistan, even though it was very brief and precise, the same way it exploited and won the 2019 general elections after the surgical strikes to avenge Pulwama terror attack. Although there are no immediate elections scheduled as of now, still the Congress apparently wants to build up a narrative to put the government on the defensive and ensure that it does not take any political advantage from the victory.
Otherwise, wouldn’t Congress also know that ceasefires are always brokered by third parties.
Follow us
