KARACHI: India on Wednesday welcomed the US-Iran ceasefire announced in the early hours of April 8 but adopted a cautious tone, with limited acknowledgement of Pakistan’s diplomatic involvement.
In a report published by India’s daily ‘The Hindu’, while the Indian government called for an early end to the conflict and for “unimpeded” trade flow through the Strait of Hormuz, India’s Ministry of External Affairs did not refer directly to any of the parties in the conflict by name.
“Unlike other foreign ministries in other capitals, the MEA did not ‘thank’ Pakistan for its role in mediating between both sides and for offering to host the next round of talks expected this week,” the report said.
A joint statement released by the leaders of the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the European Commission, the European Council and Japan thanked Pakistan for “facilitating [the] important agreement [the ceasefire].”
Opposition voices, too, largely remained muted on the ceasefire itself. Congress leader Rahul Gandi, who a day before had criticised US President Donald Trump’s ‘end of civilisation’ threat, also appeared reluctant to release his statement on the ceasefire and the parties involved.
Congress MP Pramod Tiwari, however, criticised the ‘Vishwaguru’, India’s recent self-identity as world teacher, and his country’s foreign policy response to the developments.
While speaking to Indian news agency ANI, Tiwari stated that while the ceasefire is a welcome move for global energy security, it is “painful” for India that the subsequent high-level talks are scheduled to take place in Islamabad, Pakistan. He expressed concern over India’s “failed” foreign policy and the growing influence of China and Pakistan in global diplomacy.
When asked about Pakistan’s role as a mediator, Indian officials showed restraint. When asked how important is Pakistan’s role in the ceasefire, during his interview with India Today, Indian diplomat and former ambassador to France Jawed Ashraf said: “let us not get too engaged in this issue of messengers and mediators”.
He added that Pakistan likely positioned itself as a mediator in part due to its geographic and economic vulnerability to the conflict, as well as its communication channels with both Washington and Beijing. However, from India’s perspective, the priority is not who mediates, but whether the conflict is brought to an end and contained. “Our focus is on limiting spillover risks, safeguarding economic interests and ensuring stability in critical routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, where emerging disputes over transit passage could have wider implications for international norms.”
Just weeks earlier the ceasefire, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar had, through the use of undiplomatic language, said that his country is “not a go-between country like Pakistan”.
India and Pakistan have had strained relationships since 2019 when the latter revoked Occupied Kashmir’s special status. The relations turned extremely sour when the two sides engaged in a conflict in May, where Pakistan succeeded in proving its air dominance.
