By equating the two countries and ignoring terrorism concerns, the US leader risks undermining years of de-hyphenated diplomacy and fueling skepticism in India over trade and defense ties with Washington

US President Donald Trump's loose and uninformed remarks in the aftermath of India's military action against Pakistan following the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22 have cast a shadow over India-US ties.

Trump makes factually incorrect remarks on many international issues and India is not a unique target. It may be wise to ignore his erratic comments, especially as he frequently contradicts himself, but it is not always possible to do so as the public fallout of his capricious utterances has to be managed.

Many remarks by Trump have irked India. His urge to project himself as a peacemaker made him announce a ceasefire between India and Pakistan even before the concerned parties could do so. This slighted India politically by creating an impression that a ceasefire had been forced on New Delhi, whereas India's retaliatory strategy had de-escalation built into it.

India attacked only terrorist hubs in Pakistan and specifically declared that the Pakistani military was not being targeted, placing the onus of escalation on Islamabad.

Pakistan reacted by attacking civilian villages on the border and Indian military targets, to which India responded strongly. Having done that, India had no interest in prolonging the conflict if Pakistan was prepared to de-escalate.

India had already achieved its major objective of conducting military operations below the nuclear threshold even in the heartland of Pakistan. This was a powerful message to Pakistan that India will no longer tolerate its abetment of terrorism against India.

Motives behind US intervention

For Pakistan there was no untoward message in the US first announcing a ceasefire because it has always sought American intervention in India-Pakistan affairs. Pakistan has benefited from US protection for decades. It has willingly done Washington's bidding for decades both to benefit from US military and financial aid and as an insurance against India, whose ties with the US have always been difficult.

Pakistan supported jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and its prime minister was summoned to travel to Washington DC during the 1999 Kargil conflict to be warned against violating the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan had to bear the humiliation of the US eliminating Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil without being informed of the operation, and so on.

Initially, Trump distanced himself from the India-Pakistan conflict by leaving it to the two countries to sort it out between themselves. Vice President J.D. Vance, too, stated that it was not a conflict that the US would like to get involved in though he hoped that it would not lead to a wider regional conflict. This implied a concern that China may be drawn into the conflict if Pakistan found itself in dire military straits.

It appears that the attacks on Pakistan's principal air bases, especially in Kirana Hills, close to nuclear storage sites - an attack denied by the Indian Air Force - may have prompted the US to diplomatically intervene.

This might explain Trump's remarks about having averted a nuclear conflict and saving the lives of millions. This plays into Pakistan's hands as Islamabad has always brandished its nuclear capability to dissuade India from any major retaliation against terrorism.

More so, it has used nuclear blackmail to frighten the US and others in the West about a potential nuclear showdown in the sub-continent unless the West helped address the Kashmir issue.

The West has bought into this Pakistani narrative willingly as a political pressure point on India and as a leverage to contain India's nuclear program. The US and Europe have never condemned loose nuclear talk by Pakistan. Even now, Trump has not stated which country is the source of the nuclear threat. The US knows that No-First-Use is part of India's nuclear doctrine, but not that of Pakistan.

Desire to mediate

Trump has claimed that the US played a mediatory role in bringing about the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This is misleading as India as a matter of policy has rejected any mediation by a third party in India-Pakistan issues ever since the 1972 Simla Agreement which stipulates bilateralism in resolving outstanding differences between the two countries.

Trump, however, for reasons unclear, has been keen to mediate between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.

He first publicly stated that he would love to mediate during his meeting with then-Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan at the White House in 2019. Later, he said publicly that he had proposed mediation to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who strongly rejected it. By raising once again his desire to mediate, Trump is touching a raw nerve in India, as New Delhi would see it as gratuitously questioning a fundamental tenet of India's position on bilateralism, besides encouraging the internationalization of the Kashmir issue and playing into Pakistan's narrative.

In all his statements, Trump has equated India and Pakistan when talking about his relationship with the two countries and their leaders. He is hyphenating India and Pakistan once again when de-hyphenating US ties with the two countries in recent years has been seen as the hallmark of a new India-US relationship based on objective factors.

Trump has praised "the strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India and Pakistan for having the strength, wisdom, and fortitude to....stop the current aggression."

Given the nature of the Pakistani system with the dominant role of the military headed by an openly Islamist military chief and a weak civilian government, equating it with India's political and military leadership is seen in India as wrong-headed.

No word on terrorism

Trump has also not addressed the issue of terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil even though the US itself has suffered on this count. For India the core issue of terrorism has to be addressed by Pakistan to avoid a conflict in the future, but this Indian exigency has been ignored in US statements.

While advocating de-escalation and a peaceful solution through dialogue which is to be expected, a word could have been said by the US about the responsibility of all governments to eliminate terrorism. It was most important to flag this issue but Trump has chosen to give Pakistan a pass.

READ MORE: They told me to leave the only home I know: How the India-Pakistan crisis has torn families apart

One supposes that if in Saudi Arabia Trump could meet and praise the Syrian president with his Islamic State past and a US bounty of $10 million on his head, it should not be surprising that for geopolitical considerations he should choose to ignore the issue of Pakistani terrorism directed at India.

The G7 statement too, while seeking immediate de-escalation, urging maximum restraint and expressing support for a swift and lasting diplomatic resolution, ignores the core need to eliminate terrorism in the sub-continent on a lasting basis.

Trump has also trifled with history by referring to the India-Pakistan conflict as one that is a thousand years old, forgetting that Pakistan was created only in 1947. In Saudi Arabia, he fulsomely praised US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his stellar role in bringing about an India-Pakistan ceasefire and imagined the possibility of the two countries now having dinner together. This is being flippant.

Trade lever

Trump has also said that he was ready to stop trade with both countries to force a ceasefire, but now that they have agreed to a ceasefire he would substantially increase trade with both countries. Threatening to use the trade lever with India at the time when trade talks between Washington and New Delhi are proceeding well makes little sense.

If Trump considers using trade to persuade New Delhi to align with his agenda, some in India may advise caution about strengthening defense ties with the US. This dependency could make India more vulnerable in a crisis if geopolitical tensions arise between the two countries.

Trump's remark that now that India and Pakistan have agreed to a ceasefire he would increase trade with both is once again difficult to comprehend. Why link India-US trade at $200 billion with Pakistan-US trade worth $7.4 billion in 2024?

The US president's other remark that Indian tariffs are so high that the US does not figure even amongst the first 30 countries that export to India shows either how ill-briefed he is or that he has fixations he cannot shed. The US is in fact the fourth largest exporter to India after China, Russia and the UAE.

Trump's disregard of the damaging fallout of his ill-considered and self-centered statements was evident most recently in Qatar, when he said that he had chided Apple CEO Tim Cook to stop manufacturing iPhones in India and build in the US instead. The fact that Apple is progressively shifting production from China to India is being acclaimed in New Delhi as a success in inserting the country in global supply chains. With India seeking to raise the contribution of manufacturing to GDP from the present 17% to 25% by 2030, with anticipation of more US investments as part of growing bilateral economic ties, this is hardly the message New Delhi wants to hear from the US president.

India has been relatively optimistic about managing a mercurial Trump. Maybe India needs to re-work its assumptions and hedge its geopolitical and economic bets somewhat more than was calculated earlier.

(RT.com)