On the anniversary of the terrorist act in the Indian Kashmir, India; context of the current situation in the Middle East

On April 22, India celebrated the anniversary of the terrorist act, one of the bloodiest in the last few years. Its immediate consequence was another Indo-Pakistani armed conflict.

About the terrorist attack in Pahalgam

The immediate result of the terrorist attack that occurred a year ago near the town of Pahalgam in the Indian part of the former princely state of Kashmir was the death of 26 and the wounding of 20 tourists who had come to admire the scenery of the “Indian resort Switzerland.” But it also served as the pretext for another brief but intense armed conflict that broke out two weeks later between India and Pakistan, the two de facto nuclear powers in the South Asian subregion. Fortunately, as in the previous “Kargil conflict” of 1998, this “doomsday weapon” was not used.
In this conflict, the world leader behaved like a “bull in a china shop,” who, after wreaking havoc, failed to achieve his stated goals and is at a loss as to what to do next.
Although a branch of the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist organization, based primarily in Pakistan, almost immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, there is still no available evidence of any involvement by Islamabad. This organization is also a source of problems for the Pakistani government, whose current leader, Shah Sharif, immediately after the attack declared his willingness to participate in a “neutral” investigation.

But, apparently, even in India, no consensus has yet been reached on who was behind the Pahalgam attack and what their real goals were. At least, at the time of writing, no date was known for the trial following their own investigation. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to a very general assessment: this is yet another manifestation of the complex “Kashmir problem,” which arose after the partition of “British India” into two independent states in 1947, each of which has since attempted to resolve it in its own way.

On the anniversary of the terrorist attack, expressions of solidarity with the people of India were sent on behalf of the governments of Australia, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel. The first three did so at the embassy level in India, while Israel’s Foreign Minister, Georg Saar, issued a statement expressing “our continued commitment to deepening cooperation with India in the fight against terrorism and promoting peace, security, and stability.”

India and Pakistan’s positions on aggression against Iran

The Israeli minister’s quoted words appear significant in light of current events in Iran, which, by virtue of its geography, serves as a link between the subregions of South Asia and the Middle East. Together, they constitute a single zone of heightened turbulence throughout the Indo-Pacific region, where armed conflicts of varying scales erupt in a near-constant succession. Regarding the current aggression against Iran, provoked by US-Israeli cooperation, the position of both India and Pakistan has been reduced to calls for its immediate end and for a negotiated resolution.

However, Pakistan’s leadership was significantly more active on the diplomatic front than India. In addition to the aforementioned appeal, it offered to mediate negotiations between the US and Iran, and a series of contacts followed with the leadership of not only Iran and the US, but also almost all Middle Eastern countries.

It is noteworthy that Pakistan was represented in these contacts not only by Prime Minister Sh. Sharif and Foreign Minister I. Dar, but also by the Commander of the Pakistani Armed Forces, Field Marshal A. Munir, who was formally an outsider in the diplomatic sphere. This is explained by the specifics of the internal political situation in Pakistan and the place of the army in it.

Despite the absence of a signed document ending the armed phase of the conflict between the US and Iran, Pakistan’s diplomatic mediation activity has significantly strengthened its international authority.

At the same time, India has adopted a passive stance, which apparently suits Israel. This largely explains the high level of Israeli support for India on the anniversary of the Pahalgam attack. However, relations between India and Israel have a long history , which also influences the current situation. New Delhi appears to have decided to wait and see: “We will stand aside for now while our important partner engages in outright banditry. At the same time, we will maintain relations with Iran, which is also important to us .” In the context of the “Great World Game,” where the laws of Realpolitik rule, excluding moralizing and emotion, sometimes it makes sense to pass.

Trump’s rollercoaster ride with India and Pakistan

The underlying reasons for the US involvement in yet another conflict in the Middle East will certainly be the subject of serious research. However, there’s little doubt that it’s completely irrelevant to the interests of one of the world’s leading powers, as articulated in the latest version of the National Security Strategy. Moreover, in this conflict, the world leader behaved like a “bull in a china shop,” someone who, after wreaking havoc, has failed to achieve their stated goals and is at a loss as to what to do next.

In this regard, the current Pakistani leadership’s move to partially restore relations with the United States, which were almost allied during the Cold War, proved quite opportune. Islamabad’s offer of mediation was immediately accepted by President Donald Trump , who expressed gratitude to Sharif and A. Munir on social media and dispatched Vice President J.D. Vance to Pakistan for talks.

It’s difficult to predict how this extremely timely gesture from Islamabad will impact the aforementioned trend in US-Pakistan relations, as Washington still faces the challenge of developing an optimal strategy in South Asia amid the antagonistic relationship between the two main players there, Pakistan and India.

For at least two decades, India, along with Japan, has been viewed as a crucial element of Washington’s “strategic balancer,” designed to counterbalance China, whose role is rapidly growing throughout the Indo-Pacific region. And over this period, undeniable progress has been made in developing comprehensive relations with India. Suffice it to mention the launch of the Quad format, comprising the United States, India, Japan, and Australia, since 2021.

The personality of US President Donald Trump, who doesn’t bother with maintaining a certain level of discretion in his relations even with allies and friends, has proven a serious challenge to the further development of US-India relations. In particular, India has become one of the main victims of Trump’s declared “tariff war” worldwide. He also doesn’t limit himself to public language, which is equally damaging to relations with a key quasi-ally.

The latest such attack was Donald Trump’s reposting of a transcript of a meeting in which India and China were called “hellholes.” Although he immediately tried to downplay this obvious gaffe by calling India a “great country ,” as the saying goes, “words are not sparrows…” Nevertheless, even under these circumstances, India is demonstrating its signature restraint and patience, as the “price of the issue” associated with maintaining relations with the United States is too high for it.

The situation in the South Asia and Middle East subregion, where India and Pakistan are among the main players, appears extremely complex and confusing. The stalemate in relations between these countries is further illustrated by the lingering aftermath of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam a year ago.