Ceasefire is welcome, but it is also fragile

A ceasefire agreement has been announced between India and Pakistan. While seen as a de-escalatory step, it remains fragile due to Pakistan’s internal military dominance and India’s historical aversion to external mediation. The US has claimed involvement in facilitating the ceasefire, which India is unlikely to endorse.

India’s Stand on Mediation and Historical Lessons

• Consistent Rejection of Third-Party Mediation: India firmly rejects external intercession in bilateral matters, especially on Kashmir. This policy is rooted in India's experience post-1947–48 when the US-UK bloc at the UNSC adopted a pro-Pakistan stance, undermining India's legal arguments.
• Cold War-Era Western Pressure on India: After the 1962 Sino-Indian War, India was diplomatically pressured by the US and UK to negotiate with Pakistan. However, despite inconclusive talks, this attempt highlighted India’s vulnerability to external agendas during periods of military weakness.
• Simla Agreement and Legal Interpretation Conflicts: In 1972, the Simla Agreement institutionalized bilateralism, but the phrase “other peaceful means” has been interpreted differently. While Pakistan views it as permitting multilateralism, India categorically denies any such allowance.

US Role and India’s Strategic Autonomy

• Trump Administration’s Misreading of India’s Policy: Despite US claims that Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio facilitated the ceasefire, India's rejection of US mediation indicates a fundamental gap in American understanding of India's geopolitical posture.
• Historical Distrust of UNSC and Western Diplomacy: India’s earlier reliance on UNSC interventions — especially in the 1947–48 war — led to disillusionment, shaping a strong doctrine of strategic autonomy in foreign policy that resists Western arbitration.
• Kashmir and Domestic Political Consensus: There is rare political consensus in India against internationalizing the Kashmir issue. Any move to re-engage the UN or external mediators would be politically untenable within India’s national security framework.

Strategic Calculus of Pakistan and Military Influence

• Pakistan’s Tactical Use of Ceasefire: The ceasefire gives Pakistan a temporary reprieve amid internal crises—economic instability, dependence on Chinese financing (via CPEC), and another IMF bailout, making prolonged conflict unsustainable.
• Role of the Pakistani Military Establishment: Despite a civilian government, policymaking remains dominated by the army. General Asim Munir, the current COAS, is known for his hardline stance toward India, suggesting that peace overtures are tactical, not strategic.
• Credibility of Indian Normalcy Narrative Challenged: Through proxy warfare, Pakistan has managed to expose the gap in India’s narrative of restored normalcy in Kashmir, influencing perceptions in the international community and among strategic observers.

Practice Question

Q. India has consistently rejected third-party mediation in its bilateral disputes with Pakistan. Critically examine this stance in light of recent ceasefire developments, historical UNSC dynamics, and evolving global geopolitical pressures.