US President Donald Trump’s interventions have infuriated India, which has not emerged from conflict as triumphant as it had hoped.
Against the odds, the ceasefire that followed India and Pakistan’s almost-war has held; fragile, uneasy ,but still unbroken. Yet in the aftermath of four days of cross-border drones and missile strikes — the most technologically advanced conflict either side have ever engaged in — the question remains: What now?
While both India and Pakistan have claimed victory, some experts fear that a return to hostilities is almost inevitable.
There is a sense among analysts and diplomats that New Delhi has not emerged from the conflict as triumphant it had hoped, leaving little room for further de-escalation or political engagement. In a speech last week, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi insisted that the military offensive against Pakistani terror groups, named Operation Sindhoor, was still ongoing and that the ceasefire was simply a “pause.”
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s army, after going through a period of reputational decline, is once again the nation’s most revered institution — proving that nothing works better for the fortunes of Pakistan’s generals than an altercation with India.
“India has made it clear they are still on a state of alert,” said Chietigj Bajpaee, a senior research fellow for South Asia at the Chatham House think tank.
He was skeptical that India’s missile strikes into Pakistan had done much to deter any future militant attacks, which India’s defense minister said would now be taken as an “act of war.”
“With the hypernationalist rhetoric we are still seeing from both sides, it seems like there’s limited space for any lasting rapprochement,” Bajpaee said.
While India is seen to have achieved some tactical victories — successfully targeting known militant bases in Pakistan, firing targeted missiles into Rawalpindi, the beating heart of Pakistan’s military, and largely rebuffing Pakistani missiles — the strategic wins have been more elusive.
Instead, India is now grappling with some more uncomfortable outcomes. As Indian political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta said in his Indian Express column: “An armed conflict with no decisive victory and no clear political end simply reinstates the India-Pakistan hyphenation” — a reference to an age-old tendency to lump the two countries together as a singular quarrelling entity on the international stage.
In recent years, as India soared ahead of Pakistan, and positioned itself as a global economic and geopolitical superpower, there was a feeling in the corridors of New Delhi that they had broken free of the hyphenation burden. However, recent events showed that perceptions, particularly in the US, had not changed all that much.
Among diplomats and observers, the view was that India had been left on the back foot in the critical battle over narrative. The deep-rooted instinct of the Modi government to tightly control the flow of information (Modi himself has not done a news conference in 10 years) meant that as Operation Sindhoor was launched, their accounts of the operation were limited to a few brief, highly choreographed news conferences led by civil servants.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, government ministers were at the end of the phone and on TV news shows nonstop, briefing the world constantly on the Pakistani version of events, such as claims that Pakistan had downed five Indian military jets. The Modi government has still not publicly responded to the allegation, but instead put pressure on Indian news outlets to avoid any mention of the alleged downed planes.
Amid vast information gaps left by the Indian government an unprecedented amount of misinformation and disinformation proliferated. False claims fueled an insatiable appetite for war among the Indian public.
As a result, on May 10, when Trump abruptly announced a ceasefire before India or Pakistan had a chance, it was met with a widespread reaction of betrayal and anger in India. Many could not understand why the government would agree to a ceasefire, let alone one that seemed to have been imposed by the US. The fury among the hypernationalist far-right — Modi’s political base and where much of the disinformation originated — was particularly potent and the clamor for a return to war has still not entirely dissipated.
Trump’s boastful claims of brokering the ceasefire have also been a source of frustration to New Delhi. While he joins a long line of US presidents who have been drawn into disputes between the neighbors, it is historically done far more discreetly and largely on terms favorable to India.
This time, India was left so infuriated at Trump’s version of events, including that coercion over trade led both sides to lay down arms, that it openly repudiated several of the president’s statements.
Trump’s involvement has also resulted in another strategic upset for India; the re-internationalization of the Kashmir issue. India’s immovable position is that its dispute with Pakistan over the region, which dates back to 1947, is a purely internal issue that should have no outside interference or third-party negotiation.
However, in flagrant disregard for this, Trump offered, post-ceasefire, to mediate between the two countries to find a “solution.” Pakistan leapt at the offer; in India it was met with stony silence.
The Indian political strategist Brahma Chellaney accused Trump of “playing right into the hands of Pakistan which has long weaponized the Kashmir issue to justify its export of terror.”
Much still remains up in the air between the two sides. The land border between the countries is still closed, both sides are still denying visas and perhaps most critically, the Indus River treaty, which ensures Pakistan gets a vital supply of river water from India, remains suspended by New Delhi.
However, while among the political class in Islamabad there is optimistic chatter of post-ceasefire talks in the Gulf or London — where even Kashmir could be on the table — New Delhi has avoided the subject.
“The dilemma is that this war does not compel negotiations. Nor is it likely to build even a modicum of trust that can allow a political negotiation,” Mehta wrote.
On a deeper existential level, analysts say there remains little incentive on either side to de-escalate. In India, anti-Pakistan fervor has only driven up support for Modi and helped his strongman Hindu nationalist government win elections. In Pakistan, the ever-present threat of India has long been used to justify the overdominating role of the military in the running of the country.
Bajpaee is among those who has a pessimistic view of any suggestion of post-conflict political dialogue between the two countries, calling them a “dead end,” when both sides are “essentially talking past each other.”
“It seems very unlikely that we’re going to see any sort of credible peace process,” he said. “Frankly, at this point, I would say it’s not a question of if, but when we will see a resumption of some sort of military hostilities between both countries.”
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS