-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
Trump’s opportunistic meddling in Operation Sindoor reveals fault lines in US-India ties and a troubling pivot in Washington’s Pakistan policy.
.jpg)
Image Source: Getty
‘Operation Sindoor’, India’s military retaliation against Pakistan, marked not just an escalation in military preparedness and response, but also became notable for its unintended consequences—chief among them, the unseemly haste with which the United States (US) President Donald Trump claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between the two nations. On one hand, it showcased Trump’s quintessential and compulsive lurch for a deal; on the other, it was a case of egregious midnight diplomacy—prematurely triumphant and threatening to overshadow the progress India has made since the Clinton era in shaping the bilateral equation with Pakistan. Several strands stemming from Trump’s interventionist approach amid the India-Pakistan conflict reek of a broader departure in Washington’s policy from its past trajectory.
Several strands stemming from Trump’s interventionist approach amid the India-Pakistan conflict reek of a broader departure in Washington’s policy from its past trajectory.
Trump’s tendency to speak of India and Pakistan in the same breath—a perceived return to hyphenation—has understandably caused consternation in India. While tensions between the two countries may have temporarily abated, Trump has continued to praise Pakistan, in stark contrast to the critical stance he adopted during his first term. Since the military escalation ended, he has repeatedly referenced his alleged role in securing a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This narrative jars with his 2018 rhetoric, when Trump openly denounced Pakistan as a ‘safe haven for terrorists.’ The apparent change of heart contrasts sharply with the two decades of strategic trust built between India and the US. Beyond institutional ties between India and the US, there has arguably never been such alignment between Indian public sentiment and the nature of both the American government and governance. A positive perception streak, which commenced in the early days of his presidential campaign for the second term and lasted until the first 100 days of his second administration, may have begun to fade. For a relationship strongly built on people-to-people ties, declining public perception could substantially affect the bilateral relationship—irrespective of Trump’s own indifference.
India could consider three possible approaches. First, it might dismiss Trump’s altered tone on Pakistan as typical Trumpian bluster—harmless, so long as his newfound affection for Pakistan remains rhetorical. Second, New Delhi could draw a firm demarcation between American political posturing and India's expectations from Washington regarding the India-Pakistan dynamic. Third, it could treat this shift as a warning signal—an indication of potentially lasting changes in US-Pakistan ties—and begin preparing for both the intended and unintended consequences such changes may bring. With Trump, all three scenarios remain plausible.
If Trump’s sole aim was to secure an immediate ceasefire amid the rapidly escalating conflict earlier this month, his remarks suggesting a thaw with Pakistan can be overlooked. However, given his penchant for deals, it’s plausible Trump envisions a Faustian, transactional bargain with Islamabad. Emerging links between the Trump family and the Pakistan Crypto Council add to the speculation. In the long run, the economic seduction of a potential mineral deal in the Af-Pak region could lure Donald Trump towards Islamabad. Yet, returning to a region the US struggled to exit would be deeply ill-advised. Pakistan’s restive western region and its simmering borders with Afghanistan and Iran should serve as strong deterrents—despite the promise of economic gains.
Trump’s diplomatic turnaround on Pakistan may have a latent geo-economic design, but India has made clear that any attempt at hyphenation or false equivalence with Pakistan is unacceptable. Accordingly, India has firmly rejected Trump’s claims of using coercive trade threats to enforce cessation of hostilities with Pakistan, as well as any suggestion that the conflict veered toward a nuclear escalation. As externalities shape themselves, steps to set their narrative may also be in order. India’s decision to send seven all-party parliamentary delegations to over 30 countries to set the record straight on Pakistan’s role in incubating terrorism and explain the nuances of Operation Sindoor is a nimble diplomatic move to correct misperceptions. As a larger and more capable state—evident from its precision actions-at-will strikes inside Pakistan—India must actively project its version of events. In the absence of that, history shows, Pakistan will once again play the underdog to eschew the international gaze and pressure. In the realist world order, strategic restraint may not always be a virtue. With a neighbour such as Pakistan, that principle demands recalibration—and Operation Sindoor, by establishing a red line of zero tolerance against terrorism, may have just done that.
Donald Trump and his administration would do well to stop soft-pedalling the threat Pakistan poses to India—and the instability within the Pakistani state.
In his second term, Trump appears markedly different— approaching nearly every issue with a transactional perspective. His flirtation with enhanced trade with Pakistan reflects an impulsive and uncalculated recalibration. However, Donald Trump and his administration would do well to stop soft-pedalling the threat Pakistan poses to India—and the instability within the Pakistani state. A section of the US political circle believes Pakistan can be mainstreamed into a functioning democracy. But, since India’s military actions, Pakistan has signalled the opposite—especially by entrenching the power and position of its de facto leader, Asim Munir, by promoting him to a Field Marshall.
In Delhi, there is a near-unanimous conviction that Pakistan cannot be mainstreamed as a rational, democratic actor free of terrorism links. The US, however, continues to exhibit significant political dissonance when it comes to Pakistan.
A growing divergence may emerge between Delhi and Washington over Pakistan—one that could undermine the future of India–US strategic partnership. In Delhi, there is a near-unanimous conviction that Pakistan cannot be mainstreamed as a rational, democratic actor free of terrorism links. The US, however, continues to exhibit significant political dissonance when it comes to Pakistan. In the current political climate, Trump believes Pakistan could offer economic utility. Richard Grenell, his special envoy for special missions, has publicly supported Imran Khan’s release as a step toward democratic reform.
Meanwhile, Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina has introduced the ‘Pakistan Democracy Act’ in the US Congress, calling for a US policy that supports democratic values in Pakistan—free and fair elections, civilian rule, judicial independence, rule of law, human rights, and due process for all citizens. Notably, the legislation proposes sanctions against General Asim Munir within six months of its enactment. To Delhi, this may all seem like a pipe dream.
The Trump administration’s campaign resumé, contrary to his early promises about a time-bound conflict resolution, is rapidly being rescripted by failures to arrive at a deal either in Ukraine or Gaza; an economic deal with China that looks like a geopolitical stare-down by Beijing and a still uncertain Indo-Pacific policy. Blame it on Trump’s ‘if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail’ policy approach in his second term, but the tendency to see deals as the panacea to all ills is faltering. Amid all this, a strained relationship with New Delhi is the last thing Washington should want.
Vivek Mishra is the Deputy Director of the Strategic Studies Programme, Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Vivek Mishra is Deputy Director – Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation. His work focuses on US foreign policy, domestic politics in the US, ...
Read More +
PREV
