With arbitration extended by the United States, Pakistan and India agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire on May 10. While peace has been restored for now, the root cause of conflict between the two nuclear neighbours remains unresolved: the Kashmir dispute.
In the wake of the ceasefire, US President Donald Trump offered his good offices to mediate a solution between Pakistan and India. Pakistan welcomed the offer, insisting that any settlement must be based on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and ensure the fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people, including their right to self-determination.
Previously, Trump had dismissed the Kashmir dispute as a centuries-old problem resistant to resolution. But in the face of renewed hostilities, he seemed to recognise its gravity and expressed a willingness to help resolve it. This offer unsettled India, which has long considered Kashmir a closed chapter, following its unilateral merger of the region into the Indian union. India has consistently rejected third-party mediation, arguing that Kashmir is an internal matter. This stance, however, ignores the regional and global implications of the conflict, as demonstrated by the recent clashes—brief though they were.
While Pakistan welcomed Trump’s intervention, it has overlooked the importance of the Simla Accord, signed with India in 1972. The accord calls for bilateral resolution of disputes and affirms that Kashmir remains an unresolved issue between the two countries. Yet neither side refers to the accord anymore. Pakistan fails to invoke it in discussions with the US, while India disregards it altogether. The Kashmir dispute thus floats between the UN resolutions and Simla’s forgotten commitments, with no firm diplomatic anchor.
India continues to ignore two critical realities. First, the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35-A, which altered Kashmir’s constitutional status, has not erased the ground reality of conflict and dissent. Second, by ceasing to acknowledge the Simla Accord, India treats Kashmir as a settled matter, when in fact, both parties remain bound by past commitments and the dispute remains unresolved.
Trump also suggested enhancing trade ties with both countries as a means to foster peace and keep them engaged. While the US maintains a stronger strategic partnership with India, it still views Pakistan as a key ally in counterterrorism efforts. Disregarding Pakistan could undermine US interests in the region. Even if India refuses mediation, Washington can still use trade incentives to keep both countries within its diplomatic orbit.
Historically, US presidents, including Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden, have offered mediation on Kashmir, always welcomed by Pakistan and invariably rejected by India. Trump likely anticipated India’s refusal but extended the offer nonetheless—to signal goodwill and reaffirm Pakistan’s place in the peace process. That, too, is a form of diplomacy.
India’s 2019 revocation of Kashmir’s special status ignored the wishes of the Kashmiri people, who had never demanded integration into the Indian union and have long resisted infringement on their autonomy. The abrupt shift from limited sovereignty to subjugation was bound to provoke unrest. Yet the international community largely remained silent, and Pakistan has failed to effectively raise the issue on global platforms, leaving Kashmiris increasingly isolated.
Now, in the aftermath of the recent de-escalation, Pakistan has an opportunity to once again bring Kashmir to the international stage. It must hold Trump to his offer, pushing him to persuade India to reconsider its rigid stance, rather than leaving the issue for another US president. In doing so, Trump could aim for an elusive prize: resolving a decades-old conflict between two nuclear-armed nations—and perhaps earning a Nobel Peace Prize in the process.
Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha
The writer is an analyst on National Security and Counter-Terrorism. She tweets @TA_Ranjha and can be reached at taranjha1@gmail.com