Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, May 12: Even as the US President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed credit for brokering peace between India and Pakistan, the left parties on Monday lambasted the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government for opening the flood gates for the US to play its typical hegemonic and destabilising role in South Asia by accepting its mediation in a bilateral matter between the two countries.
“It is an avowedly accepted policy of our country that we settle our disputes bilaterally, without allowing any third party intervention. Therefore, this situation requires clear and authoritative clarification from the highest levels of our government,” Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary M.A. Baby said. He also reiterated the CPI(M)’s demand for a Special Session of Parliament, saying that several pressing concerns continue to remain unaddressed.
CPI general secretary D. Raja also criticised the government, claiming that by agreeing to the United States’ initiative to broker peace, the Indian government effectively violated the essence of the Shimla Agreement and provided scope to internationalise the Kashmir issue. “This opens the door for the U.S. to play its typical hegemonic and destabilising role in South Asia, further entrenching itself in the subcontinent’s internal matters,” he said.
The Congress MP and former diplomat Shashi Tharoor also weighed in on Mr Trump claiming credit for the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, suggesting it was “not mediation” but US efforts at “playing a constructive role.” Mr Trump even on Monday for the third time claimed that the US had mediated between India and Pakistan, and the two neighbours had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. Within an hour, both countries officially announced the ceasefire.
Mr Tharoor called it a “very unfortunate way of proceeding,” hours after his party’s former chief and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi underlined that Trump first announced the ceasefire.
“I think that’s a very unfortunate way of proceeding. I have certainly never seen anything like that in international diplomacy,” said the MP from Thiruvananthapuram who had served at the UN. Mr Tharoor pointed out that foreign ministers of both India and Pakistan have been posting online about their conversations with foreign leaders over the past few days.
“Let me be blunt about it…Jaishankar spoke to Secretary Rubio. Then he (Rubio) spoke with the foreign minister of Pakistan. These kinds of contacts were going on throughout these three or four days of the conflict. But that doesn’t mean that India was requesting mediation,” he said.
The former diplomat suggested that India’s conversations with the US cannot be termed as mediation, but a constructive role played by Washington. “That’s not mediation. That is the Americans trying to play a constructive role. If they or any other country did that, (that’s) great. Frankly, the US was not the only country. Jaishankar has been speaking to the foreign ministers of the UAE, UK, or France (as well),” he added.
The fact, he said, is that such conversations often include other nations talking to both sides, in which they apprise each country of the other’s side. “That is not the same as Trump claiming credit for mediation because India would have never sought mediation, doesn’t mean mediation, and I think would never accept the idea that we have in any way accepted foreign mediation in a conflict that we are perfectly capable of handling ourselves,” added Mr Tharoor.
Mr Trump had congratulated India and Pakistan in a post on his Truth Social platform for the ceasefire that he claimed was mediated by the United States.
“After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he wrote on Truth Social.
A day later, he said he was proud of the “strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership” of the two countries for agreeing to the halt in aggression. “I am proud that the USA was able to help you arrive at this historic and heroic decision,” he claimed.
On Monday, Mr Trump again said, “On Saturday, my administration helped broker an immediate ceasefire — I think a permanent one — between India and Pakistan, the countries having a lot of nuclear weapons.”
He said Indian armed forces and Pakistani forces were “going hot and heavy at each other” and took credit for the ceasefire. “They were going at it hot and heavy, and it was seemingly not going to stop,” he said, while speaking to the press.
“We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war, millions of people could have been killed. So I’m very proud of that,” Trump told reporters at the White House. He said he would stop trade if the war continued, without clarifying with whom the remarks were directed at.
India has firmly rejected any suggestion of third-party mediation on the Kashmir issue, stating that the only pending matter is for Pakistan to return territories currently under its illegal occupation. On Saturday evening, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced that India and Pakistan had agreed to an immediate cessation of all firing and military activity across land, air and sea. The announcement followed four days of intense cross-border drone and missile engagements.
The ceasefire was first publicly mentioned by Trump, who claimed that Washington had helped mediate the agreement. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a statement confirming that the governments of India and Pakistan had agreed to a full ceasefire and would begin talks on a broad range of issues at a neutral venue.
However, Indian government sources stated that the Indus Waters Treaty would remain suspended as long as Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism against India. The sources further clarified that any engagement with Pakistan would be strictly limited to military-level talks through the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs), with no scope for political negotiations.
