At a time when the administration of President Donald Trump is trying to cement a short-term ceasefire in Ukraine, end the war in Gaza and strike a comprehensive trade deal with China, the last thing it needed was a conflict between two nuclear-armed rivals.
Last week, India and Pakistan, historic adversaries that have fought multiple wars and smaller-scale skirmishes with each other since the 1940s, entered into their most serious armed dispute in years.
The good news? With last-minute U.S. mediation, cooler heads prevailed. New Delhi and Islamabad found a way to de-escalate, stop the fighting and move toward a future that will hopefully be more benevolent than the past. The bad news: The core issues dividing these two powers will continue to fester like a wound, which means another flare-up is likely months or years down the line.
The latest conflict was sparked on April 22, when terrorists that India claims were based in Pakistan killed 26 tourists in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, territory that New Delhi and Islamabad both claim. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi went beyond the actions of previous Indian governments in his response. New Delhi downgraded diplomatic relations with Pakistan, closed the border, reduced the number of Pakistani diplomats on Indian soil and suspended a decadesong water treaty that assured joint access to the Indus Basin. The restriction in access to the basin was especially worrying for Pakistan, which is going through a water crisis.
India’s diplomatic reprisals, however, paled in comparison with its military response. On May 7, the Indian army fired missiles into Pakistan, targeting what it said was terrorist infrastructure. The Pakistanis shot down several Indian combat aircraft, but defensive measures weren’t seen as adequate by the country’s high command; the Pakistani military launched retaliatory strikes of its own. In addition to the artillery fire in Kashmir, India and Pakistan targeted one another’s air bases, which didn’t happen in 2019, the last time the two countries engaged in hostilities.
The Trump administration became increasingly nervous at the prospect of a major war erupting in one of the most populous places on the planet. Vice President JD Vance, who earlier said that the India-Pakistan fighting had nothing to do with the United States, got on the phone with Modi encouraging him to authorize direct communication with Islamabad. Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked the phones as well. The developments amounted to deja vu: Bill Clinton’s administration engaged in mediation efforts in 1999 and forced Pakistani troops to retreat from the territory they captured from the Indian army.
Despite initial claims of ceasefire violations, the fighting has subsided. Pakistan reopened its airspace, and India reopened the many airports it had shuttered as a precautionary measure. The guns have gone silent along the Line of Control, the de facto border separating Pakistani- and Indian-controlled Kashmir, but not before dozens of people were killed in the bombardment. Both sides had an interest in de-escalation: For India, a war could sour Trump as he tries to finalize a trade deal with New Delhi, and for Pakistan, its already shaky economy couldn’t sustain a resource-intensive conflict.
Trump was quick to take credit for the ceasefire. His administration does deserve thanks. Although India insists it negotiated the truce bilaterally with the Pakistanis, it’s safe to say that any deal would have taken more time if the Americans weren’t poking both sides to get something done, fast. We could conceivably mark this as one of Trump’s biggest foreign policy wins thus far — but given the lack of victories, perhaps that’s not saying much.
Even so, it would be wrong for U.S. officials, pundits, Trump-friendly media or anyone else to celebrate too loudly.
A truce is only the first step. Granted, it’s a big one, but it may mean nothing if the Indian and Pakistani governments don’t follow through on comprehensive negotiations on the issues that have driven so much conflict since their partition in 1947. While Rubio insisted over the weekend that India and Pakistan will meet at a location to be named later, there has been no confirmation from New Delhi that these discussions will actually happen. Thus far, the only talks taking place between the countries are those between military officials to keep the truce intact. At best, it’s a hold-the-line exercise and doesn’t exactly reflect a genuine peace process that would normalize relations.
Without addressing the systemic issues, no ceasefire between New Delhi and Islamabad is going to last very long. Kashmir, one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world and one that has served as the genesis for bloodshed between the two South Asian powerhouses, will have to be at the top of the list in any peace process. Unfortunately, it’s also the point of contention in which India and Pakistan are least likely to compromise. This is especially the case today, with India governed by an uber-nationalist leader and Pakistan administered by a coalition government in which the military holds most of the sway.
Getting these two actors to agree on the final disposition of a disputed territory will be as painless and easy as getting dental surgery without lidocaine.
But kicking the can down the road simply isn’t viable.
Daniel DePetris is
