Trump's Claim on Ceasefire is Unrealistic
Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the nation on Monday and cleared several doubts arising after the ceasefire was announced between India and Pakistan. His address, in particular, quelled speculation about America's role. US President Donald Trump, showing haste in this matter, announced to the world that India and Pakistan have agreed to a ceasefire. He also claimed that his role has been decisive in ending the ongoing tension between the two countries. Pakistan welcomed the announcement, while India maintained silence.
Prime Minister Modi made no mention of the US or its role in his 22-minute speech. He, however, made it clear that any talks with Pakistan would be only on terrorism and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
Through this stance, Prime Minister Modi indirectly rejected President Trump's claim that if India and Pakistan stop the war, the US can increase trade with both countries 'significantly' or the US can mediate on any issue. US President Donald Trump said, "If you stop it (war), we will do business." If you don't stop it, there will be no business and suddenly they said maybe now we are going to stop it. Trump also claimed that the US had offered to mediate in the dispute between India and Pakistan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's address was clear and decisive. The main points of his speech were – terrorism and talks, terrorism and trade and 'blood and water cannot flow together'. He also said that Operation 'Sindoor' is still ongoing, the counter-action has stopped, not ended, India will not tolerate 'nuclear blackmail' and the path to peace passes through collective power. The announcement of the ceasefire did bring a sense of relief, but it also raised questions about why India backed out. Is Pakistan really weak? And was India as willing to stop the attack as Pakistan? The biggest question that arose was – did India succumb to US pressure? There are no easy and straightforward answers to these questions.
After the ceasefire was announced, when posters featuring former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's leadership appeared and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri was trolled as a 'traitor'. Posters praising Mrs Gandhi came out, saying 'India misses Indira' and it is not easy to be Indira Gandhi. Clearly, the comparison was drawn to the 1971 war and the creation of Bangladesh, which was pitted against today's 'hasty ceasefire'. It would not be correct to say that there was no loss to Pakistan. According to the official information of the Indian side, heavy damage was inflicted on Pakistan. It is worth mentioning that it was Pakistan's DGMO who asked his Indian counterpart for a ceasefire, undoubtedly an honour saver.
After the Pahalgam attack, India took a very tough stand – the Indus Water Treaty was suspended, the Attari border was closed, Pakistani nationals were ordered to leave the country within 48 hours and the defense advisers in the Pakistan High Commission were declared 'persona non grata'. These moves had initially sent a strong message but the sudden ceasefire created a sense among the people as to why India had backtracked from its own stand. There was an atmosphere of enthusiasm and confidence across India in response to the Pahalgam terror attack.
Tensions began to rise rapidly and there were signs of further deterioration of the situation. There was uneasiness among the general public, concerns about how far the situation would go, whether Pakistan was on a suicidal path and, most importantly, whether it could resort to nuclear weapons. That is why when the ceasefire was announced, there was a sigh of relief, even for a moment. However, looking back now, some questions also arise.
Pakistan, on the other hand, got the support of Turkey and China. The US position remained shaky, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) also remained silent. Nepal and Bangladesh also did not give any clear support. Even Russia, which has been a traditional ally of India, took a neutral stance. Despite India's strong objection, Pakistan getting a bailout package from the International Monetary Fund was a decisive moment. It is well known that the US is the largest shareholder of the IMF and holds veto power. Was it a means of persuading Pakistan to ceasefire? It is still under speculation.