Did American interference in the ceasefire between India and Pakistan make Kashmir an international issue?
After the conflict between India and Pakistan, there was a lot of discussion on which side had the upper hand, who achieved what and what should be the meaning of the statements of US President Donald Trump?
Even before India and Pakistan announced a cessation of hostilities, Donald Trump announced on social media that both sides had agreed to it and would soon hold talks.
On many occasions, he or his administration said that they intervened and brought about a ceasefire between the two countries. Pakistan openly thanked the US for this.
But India has said every time that this is a matter between India and Pakistan and this ceasefire is not a sign of a permanent end to the conflict.
US Vice President JD Vance had said regarding the conflict between India and Pakistan that 'we have nothing to do with it.'
So what changed in two days that America went from having no involvement to claiming that the conflict had stopped due to mediation?
Why did India not openly refute America's statements? Is Trump preparing to play the role of mediator in this issue further? How long will the ceasefire last?
What impact will the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, visa restrictions and halt in movement between the two countries have on this ceasefire in the future?
The conflict that started between India and Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack came to an end on May 10, but one question that is being discussed is how long will it last?
Force Magazine editor Ghazala Wahab says, "It has three pillars, on the basis of which it may or may not survive. Right now Pakistan needed US intervention and it got it. It is ready to negotiate with India on every issue. US intervention was beneficial for Pakistan."
He said that at present there will be no such action from Pakistan's side that would worsen the situation and Pakistan would be accused of adopting the path of violence.
Ghazala Wahab says, "Secondly, India would like to keep the status quo as of now because it has said that it was successful in what it wanted to do. India will not get into conflict unless Pakistan provokes it."
She says, "Thirdly, China also has an opinion for Pakistan that let's stop on this issue for now and see what happens next. In the meantime, cooperation, military support and supply of resources will continue."
Why did America take a U-turn?
America's initial stance in the India-Pakistan conflict changed in just 50 hours. What happened that it was seen claiming to mediate between the two countries?
Professor Harsh Pant of King's College London says, "The Trump administration tried to remain neutral in global affairs from the very beginning. From the very beginning, it tried to show in the Middle East and the Ukraine war that if he comes, it will end quickly."
He said, "The Trump administration wants to solve its own issues instead of getting involved in any matter. It wants to step back from global affairs and focus its entire attention on the Indian and Pacific region."
Pant said that in the India-Pakistan conflict, America first adopted a traditional approach but when the Pakistani airbase became the target, then the strategy changed.
Professor Pant says, "It was decided between Pakistan and America to present Pakistan's side behind the scenes and India's side was that there would be no ceasefire until a call was made to DGMO. In this way a process was formed and the conflict ended."
Will the Jammu and Kashmir issue become global?
Donald Trump's administration has made statements on Kashmir issues. Pakistan wanted the Kashmir issue to come into discussion once again. So has the Kashmir issue come back to global focus?
Former diplomat Veena Sikri says, "Not at all. It should be put before the world that this attack in Pahalgam was a terrorist attack. This attack was an act of war. It started from here and what India did on May 7 is a response to this."
He said, "After 5 August 2019, when Article 370 was removed, the issue of Jammu and Kashmir also ended. Now the only issue is how will Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir come back? We are ready to talk on this."
She says, "I don't know how this talk of internationalization is going on? Jammu and Kashmir is an Indian state just like the other states of India. There can be no talk about this."
Veena Sikri says, "Trump knows very well what India's stand is on Jammu and Kashmir and I am hopeful that there will be no discussion on this."
Why could India not stop the IMF package?
India is a member of the IMF. We have been hearing discussions at the international level that India has increased its influence. Still, why could India not stop Pakistan's IMF package?
Veena Sikri says, "India did not participate in the voting and doing so in the IMF is a big deal. There is no negative voting system there. Hopefully, it will make a big difference."
Sikri says, "Prime Minister Modi has clearly said that there can be no negotiations with terror. It is the responsibility of the whole country to see that Pakistan is a country that helps terrorists."
She says that 'their neighbouring country Afghanistan has also left them. Now the whole world should try to stop Pakistan from carrying out terrorist attacks.'
What message might have gone to the non-state actors?
What message would the ceasefire between India and Pakistan have sent not only to Pakistan but also to non-state actors?
Ghazala Wahab says, "The Kashmir issue has been internationalized since 1948 and 1949. One part of Kashmir is occupied by China and the other part by Pakistan. In such a situation, Kashmir is a regional and international dispute as well."
Wahab says, "Ever since Prime Minister Modi came to power, there is no international platform where he has not raised this issue. He has also raised it in the UN. This issue has also been raised in bilateral statements with every country."
Wahab says, "Even before the Pakistani proxy war, the people of Kashmir had turned against Pakistan. Pakistan took advantage of this and its branches including non-state actors Lashkar and Jaish got involved in it."
He said that as long as the political need and the root of the problem remain in place, no matter what you do, there will be no significant impact.
Wahab says, "If this were not the case, our army would have been fighting these non-state actors for more than 35 years. If they were not getting ground support, would our army not have been able to remove them till now?"
Is support for non-state actors decreasing in Kashmir?
The Indian government is saying that incidents of extremism have decreased. What does this mean?
Ghazala Wahab says, "First of all, if the situation became normal after 2019, then the Kashmir issue also ended. Then why did you not remove the Armed Forces Special Powers Act?"
Wahab says, "If the situation was normal then what was the need to send additional forces? Thirdly, you demoted it and made it a Union Territory. It has not yet been declared a state."
He said that you have conducted elections and the Chief Minister is also elected but he neither has any governance system nor law and order.
"So these are some parameters. You can judge from them how normal or not the situation is."
Has there been a change in America's policy?
America used to keep itself away from every conflict earlier also but this time it seems that very public posturing is happening. So has there been a change in America's policy?
Professor Harsh Pant says, "President Trump had said while sitting next to Imran Khan during his first term that I am ready to mediate in Kashmir. This is not the first time he is saying this."
Pant says, "The change that has come in American foreign policy for the last decade is how should it shape its relations with China? How should it manage the relationship which is heading towards a cold war?"
Pant says, "When India was a very weak country, it did not allow the world to mediate in Kashmir, but today all the capabilities are present. America's foreign policy and Trump are moving on their own path. India will move forward according to its own conditions."
Why did India not get open support?
Prime Minister Modi has been saying that relations with many countries have improved, despite this why has India not received widespread support at the international level?
Professor Harsh Pant says, "If there is no mutual agreement, then no country makes a unilateral statement on such issues. With which country did India stand and say that this should not happen?"
Pant says, "Wherever the issue of terrorism comes up, India clearly says that it is wrong. We got support from the entire world in the Pahalgam attack."
He says that when the matter reached war, everyone decided according to their own wishes. This is not a big strategy and this happens.
Pant says, "I haven't seen many countries that stand up openly unless you have a direct relationship or an alliance with that country."
What will change in Kashmir due to ceasefire?
What is going to change in Kashmir after the ceasefire between India and Pakistan?
Ghazala Wahab says, "Kashmir remained completely shut due to the Pahalgam attack because they could also see that it was very bad and inhuman."
Wahab says, "He knows this will have a big impact on tourism. He is not a fool to support this."
Wahab says that if the situation improves, everything will get better on its own, like it happened from 2005 to 2007.
Ghazala Wahab says, "At that time India and Pakistan were talking behind the scenes. The central government was talking to the state and Hurriyat like a tripartite dialogue."
How is the situation in Kashmir?
When talks with Pakistan did not yield any solution, the stance changed in 2019. The special status of Jammu and Kashmir was revoked. Are things not moving towards better?
Ghazala Wahab says, "When people themselves come and join your initiative, if they feel that doing this will be beneficial and they will move forward, then it works."
Wahab says that you tell me which industry apart from tourism has participation. This has never stopped in Kashmir. Earlier people used to go to fewer places, now that many places have opened up, the number of tourists has increased.
Ghazala Wahab says, "If Pakistan has nothing to do with it then why was the ceasefire agreement renewed in 2021?"
Wahab says, "It would be wrong to assume that just because tourists are coming, everything is fine."
How long will this tension between India and Pakistan last?
Will this period of tension between India and Pakistan last long, or will both sides discuss the matter after understanding its interest?
Professor Harsh Pant says, "There will be no haste from India's side because past experiences have not been good."
Pant says, "We have seen the phase of talks, the phase of hope for peace. Many times it seems that PM Modi's approach is anti-Pakistan but people forget that he was the one who invited Nawaz Sharif to the swearing-in ceremony."
Pant says that when this outreach policy did not yield any results, he changed the policy.
Harsh Pant says, "In the last decade, Pakistan was sidelined in Indian foreign policy and India moved in a different direction. Pakistan will continue to do such things to trouble India."
On the question of diplomacy, Harsh Pant says, "We have done this before but it did not yield any results. India has had many options since 2014. Munir sahab has just tried to revive the two-nation theory with his speech. When Pakistan still sees it like this, then how will it manage?"