Donald Trump's Kashmir range of mediation brings India into a narrow place

For decades, when there has been one thing that is a taboo in the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it has been a mediation of third-party providers, especially in the long-term dispute with Pakistan about Kashmir.

So those who know are not surprised that the US President Donald Trump – known for his unorthodox diplomacy – has touched a nerve nerv in Delhi.

On Saturday he went to social media to announce that India and Pakistan – after four tense days of cross -border clashes – had approved a “complete and immediate ceasefire” that was conveyed by the United States.

Later, in another post, he said: “I will work with you to see whether a solution in relation to cashmere can be arrived after a thousand years.”

The Kashmir dispute dates from 1947, when India received independence from the British rule and was divided into the creation of Pakistan. Both neighbors claim the Kashmir region, but only partially manage them.

Several rounds of bilateral conversations over the decades have not shown a solution. India treats Kaschmir as an integral part of its territory and excludes all negotiations, especially by third parties.

The recent flare started after India, after the attack on tourists in Indian Kashmir, carried out air raids in Pakistan in Pakistan last month, which described as terrorist infrastructure, and 26 people, mainly tourists.

India accuses Pakistan of participation in the incident, an indictment that Islamabad denied.

Trump's intervention came when the struggle between the two nuclear -armed rivals threatened to turn into a full -blown conflict.

The two sides used fighter planes, rockets and drones and said they aimed at the other military installations of the other, mainly in the border areas.

While the US mediators prevent greater moisture in addition to diplomatic backchannel, President Trump Delhi's offer has brought in one place.

“Obviously it would not be welcome from the Indian side. It violates our declared position for many years,” said Shyam Saran, a former Indian foreign minister, to the BBC.

Delhi's position on Kashmir hardened, especially after he withdrawn the special status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019, which triggered widespread protests in Kashmir.

President Trump's recent comments have annoyed many Indians who see this as an attempt to “internationalize” the Kashmir dispute.

The most important opposition congress party wanted to explain the government and an all-party meeting on the “ceasefire announcements from Washington DC First”.

“Have we opened the doors to mediation for third -party providers? The Indian National Congress would like to wonder whether diplomatic channels between India and Pakistan will be reopened,” said the spokesman for the congress party, Jairam Ramesh.

The explanation of the US Foreign Minister Marco Rubio, who announced the ceasefire, also said that the two countries also agreed to “start discussions about a broad number of questions at a neutral location”. The Indians surprised this.

Delhi refused to have discussions with Islamabad, and accused his neighbors to have supported what he describes as cross -border terrorism.

Historically speaking, India rejected a mediation of third -party providers and quoted an agreement signed in 1972 after a war between the two countries a year ago. According to the sima agreement signed by the leaders of the country, they “decided” to pay their differences with peaceful means through bilateral negotiations “.

Indian officials also argue that the mighty military of the country, even if they have achieved an understanding with a civilian government in Pakistan, has launched operations that undermine these business. They refer to the Kargil War in 1999 when another conflict between the two countries began after a group of militant Pakistani militants occupied strategic areas in Kashmir in India.

The conflict took place months after the then Indian and Pakistani Prime Minister in order to solve problems through bilateral negotiations and to disturb the internal affairs of the other.

The government of the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not officially respond to President Trump's offer for placement.

But Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said: “In all its forms and manifestations, India has consistently maintained a firm and uncompromising attitude against terrorism. It will continue to do so.”

It is regarded as an indication that India may not restart direct bilateral conversations soon.

Pakistan's view is different.

“Pakistan has always wanted to mediate third-party providers in the Kashmir question in the absence of mutual trust between the two countries,” says Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad, BBC.

“Now a superpower is ready to get his neck out. Pakistan will see this as a moral victory,” says Gul.

Pakistani strategic experts like Syed Muhammad Ali argue that India's consistent refusal to deal with Pakistan should enter the international community in order to avoid future conflicts.

“Kashmir is one of the most critical topics for the international community. The latest quick escalation proves that the Sabre rattle can get out of control,” says Ali.

India's enforceable diplomacy, especially since Modi took over in 2014, was seen as a sign of his trust as an increasing global economic power.

But it has to do a difficult balancing act to ward off Trump's progress.

In recent years, the United States has been courted by India as a bulwark against an increasingly enforceable China. In addition to the United States, Australia and Japan, India is a key member of the Viereckeck security dialogue group (Quad), which was founded to accommodate Chinese expansionism in the Indo-Pacific.

In recent decades, Washington has also sold modern transport aircraft, helicopters and other military equipment to Delhi, who want to modernize its 1.4 million strong military, which is heavily dependent on Russian weapons.

The earlier American administrations were aware of India's sensitivity to the cashmere problem and largely remained from bothering themselves. But at Trump there is a question mark as to whether this position still applies.

The United States is the largest trading partner of India with bilateral trade, which in 2024 reached around USD 130 billion (98 billion GBP). The Modi government is currently negotiating a trade agreement with Washington to avoid tariffs.

Delhi has to go a fine line. It will be averse to taking Trump's offer, conveying or seeing the US ceasefire or the “understanding” or seeing what it calls and goes beyond the current military tensions. But it is also interested in having a cheap trade relationship with the USA.

Any attempt to expand the conversations – on controversial bilateral topics such as the now suspended water sharing contract or the status of Kashmir – will invite strong criticism at home, a trap that is very aware of modes.