The aftermath of India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack presents an unexpected opening for New Delhi to craft a new, carefully limited framework of engagement with Pakistan. However, this opportunity is marred by a series of challenges that India must navigate, stemming from the military action taken in retaliation for the attack that had clear links to Pakistan.
Prime Minister Modi’s firm commitment to seeking out and punishing those responsible for the attack had set high expectations, but several months into the ceasefire, there remains little clarity regarding the fate of the perpetrators. While Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri has mentioned ongoing intelligence efforts, the lack of concrete information raises numerous questions about the status of those responsible for the attack and the actions that might follow. Have they been neutralized, or is this an issue that remains unresolved?
The ceasefire between India and Pakistan has been framed as the result of bilateral talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) from both countries. Pakistan’s apparent request for peace, however, has been oversimplified. It was actually President Trump who publicly took credit for facilitating the ceasefire, even before Indian officials, such as Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, had a chance to comment. This timing raises further questions: Was this truly a result of American intervention, or is it a case of Pakistan once again attempting to involve an external mediator, as it has in the past?
The core issue, now that the Trump administration is involved, is whether India has extracted any guarantees from Pakistan. Specifically, will Islamabad cease to support or facilitate attacks like the one at Pahalgam? India has an opportunity to push this issue at the proposed meeting between Indian and Pakistani representatives, which is supposed to take place on a “neutral” ground. The word “neutral” here could hold deeper implications, and India must ensure that this opportunity is used to hold Pakistan accountable for the cross-border terrorism that has plagued the region.
That said, there is a sense of déjà vu. Previous promises from Pakistani leadership, such as the assurances made by President Pervez Musharraf to then-Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, have been broken time and again. Pakistan’s repeated pledges to stop terrorism on its soil have been rendered meaningless, as militant groups continue to thrive in its territories. Despite India’s effective strikes against multiple terrorist targets, the question remains: Were these actions enough to disrupt Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure, or will the cycle continue?
The latest developments, such as the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) approval of a financial package for Pakistan, suggest that international diplomatic efforts have not sufficiently addressed the issue of terrorism. There are concerns that these funds may be diverted to support further terror activities, and the scrutiny over how the money will be spent remains unclear. The challenge lies in ensuring that the assistance Pakistan receives does not inadvertently contribute to the violence that New Delhi seeks to eliminate.
Now, with Trump further involved, the situation has become more complex. He has not only expressed an interest in enhancing trade relations with Pakistan but also indicated a willingness to broker a solution to the Kashmir issue. This development raises eyebrows. Trump’s assertion that he could help resolve Kashmir “after a thousand years” is indicative of his lack of familiarity with the deep historical and geopolitical complexities of the region. However, it also signals the potential for a new era of U.S. involvement in India-Pakistan relations, an era that many in India had hoped was a thing of the past.
The immediate concern for India is whether Trump’s mediation will bring any tangible results or if it will only complicate matters further. While Pakistan is now positioning itself to leverage this new diplomatic attention, India must tread carefully. The strategic community in New Delhi remains wary, fearing that Trump’s focus on Kashmir could reignite tensions, despite India’s long-standing position on the matter. The Indian government must guard against any external pressures that might undermine its stance on Kashmir.
Moreover, the situation could have long-term implications for the perceptions of younger generations in Pakistan. As they witness the consequences of the conflict and the engagement of global powers, their views on peace may evolve. However, the opening created by India’s response to the Pahalgam attack offers a chance to reshape the nature of engagement with Pakistan—albeit within a very constrained framework that prioritizes India’s interests.
Author: This news is edited by: Abhishek Verma, (Editor, CANON TIMES)
Authentic news.
