The World’s Big Three is invested in both India, Pak; that’s a silver lining

Three days into the spiralling conflict between India and Pakistan, triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam terror killings, the world’s big powers are unable to take a stand, or make a move, other than calling for restraint.

The recent statement by United States Vice-President J D Vance, saying “it was none of our business” and it was up to India and Pakistan to wind down their fight, is a clear admission of Washington’s dilemma. Pakistan and, in recent years, India are both US allies that Washington values and cannot afford to alienate either.

Also Read: Op Sindoor: Brother of dead Pak 'civilian' being 'martyr' points to family's LeT link

US, China and Russia's balancing act

Pakistan's location vis-a-vis Afghanistan makes it crucial for the US. Its activities in Afghanistan were always routed via Pakistan. Especially now when the Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan.

The US also leverages its relationship with Pak to maintain its hold over India. New Delhi is close to the US, but it still maintains a deep friendship with Russia. There's also the historical baggage when India was on the Soviet side. So the US relationship with Pakistan is like an insurance to safeguard its interests in South Asia, notwithstanding occasional tensions between the two.

Similar is the case with Russia and China. In the case of Russia-India, the relationship has lasted decades (earlier as part of the Soviet Union), which has continued steadily despite India moving closer to the US since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. As for its ties with Pakistan, Russia has opened up new avenues and in recent years the Moscow-Islamabad relationship has broken new ground on several fronts, except for military trade.

China is the worst placed among the three as it has grown pretty close to New Delhi in recent years with record volumes of mutual trade. At the same time, Beijing has continued its special relationship with Pakistan, gravitating even closer to it in recent years as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.

China, India sorted out issues

In the last few months, China and India have sorted out some of their long-festering issues within the larger boundary dispute. Chinese troops have withdrawn in a move aimed at demilitarising key patrolling points, including at Depsang and Demchok in the Ladakh region, thereby considerably reducing mutual tensions.

In a situation as now, where India and Pakistan are at each other’s throat, China has issued statements along expected lines backing Pakistan but also requesting the two countries to exercise restraint. Though the Xi Jinping government expressed “regret” at India’s missile attack on Pakistan, it said it was willing to play a constructive role to defuse the situation.

Also Read: Scrapping Indus Water Treaty: A tactical move with advantages, and risks

World urges restraint

For sections of people in both countries who wouldn’t want the conflict to extend or escalate into a full-fledged war, the scenario is conducive as all these three nations, big powers, close to both countries, would try any means to defuse the situation.

If the reason for the conflict is taken into account, the allies of both countries cannot help but understand India’s outrage over the killing of innocent tourists at Pahalgam. Though Pakistan has asked for evidence tracing the killings to Islamabad, India has used past incidents, including the Mumbai terror attack and the attack on India’s Parliament building, to stand its ground.

It was no surprise that the special session of the United Nations Security Council earlier this week to discuss the India-Pakistan situation did not result in any resolution, other than calls for restraint.

In short, the world is caught in a bind over the peculiarities of the ongoing conflagration – unable to say anything or put pressure on either of the two countries.

Also Read: Pakistan seeks loans from IMF, World Bank; can India thwart it?

India's firm stand

The Modi government in New Delhi has taken the line that it has not acerbated the situation, on the ground that the Pahalgam killing was the original escalation. And, the world, tired of terrorism and terrorist-related killings, is unable to counter this view.

In the past three decades, the US used its diplomacy and influence over the two nuclear-armed countries to ward off imminent wars. If the 1999 Kargil war remained a limited conflict that was because of the exertions at the back-end by the Bill Clinton administration which worked with both countries to end the fighting – especially with Pakistan which had triggered the conflict using army irregulars.

When Bush defused the tension

Later, in December 2001, when India’s Parliament was attacked by Pakistan-backed Kashmiri insurgents, war seemed imminent with the armies on both sides massed against each other on the border. This time, the George W Bush administration muscled in, defusing the situation.

That was also the case in 2008, following the Mumbai terror attacks. The arrest of the Pakistani national Ajmal Kasab conclusively established the involvement of Islamabad, forcing it to cooperate somewhat with India. With the US again getting involved as the umpire, war was averted.

The Pulwama attack of 2019 was the first time in the last three decades that the US failed to prevent India from acting against Pakistan. The resulting Balakot strike, however, did not lead to anything major other than a one-off firefight, the downing of an Indian military aircraft and the detention by Pakistan of its pilot, Group Captain Abhinandan Varthaman.

The then Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan’s conciliatory gesture in releasing the pilot unconditionally defused the situation conclusively.

Also Read: Missile attack: Pakistan shuts its airspace totally

Global influence weakening

The current post-Pahalgam response reflects a hardening of attitudes within the Indian state and a potential reduction in the influence of external powers over both countries. More importantly, the current conflict is also the reflection of a loss of heft and credibility of key organisations like the United Nations which are meant to prevent precisely such flare-ups.

Already, the failure of the UN and the compromised credibility of big powers like the US and Russia have seen mass killings by Israel in Gaza, some calling it a genocide. And, not to forget, the world’s inability to prevent wars of the kind being fought between Ukraine and Russia.

The latest is the India-Pakistan conflagration. The only difference between this and the other two – Gaza and Ukraine – is that there are no direct stakes or involvement in it for any big power, and that should, hopefully, result in better results for diplomacy.