TOI correspondent from Washington: What exactly did US President Donald Trumpmean when he said India and Pakistan will “figure it out one way or the other” in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attack? One reading is that Trump is treading a neutral path, not wishing to take sides in a clash rooted in history, of which he appears to only have a vague idea. Another interpretation: he is giving India a free hand to do what it deems necessary.
The MAGA chairman is occasionally known for his clarity of thought and expression. Par for the course, there is damaged grammar, jumbled words, and inadequate sentences. Perhaps so, his remarks on Friday about the India-Pak conflict, including his links to the conflict in Kashmir and the “going on for a thousand times or even long… 1500 years,” left experts scratching their heads.
Trump responded to the tensions by saying,” I am very close to India and I’m very close to Pakistan, and they’ve had that fight for a thousand years in Kashmir. Kashmir has been in existence for a thousand years, probably more. A terrorist attack was a bad one. On that border have been tensions for 1, 500 years. It’s always been the same, but I’m sure they’ll figure it out somehow. Both of my leaders are familiar. Pakistan and India have always been at odds with one another.
Trump supporters ‘ charitable explanation is that the US President was only speaking metaphorically to show that, when viewed from a religious perspective, India and Pakistan, which have both historically been at odds with one another. There is little the US can do to help them and they must sort it out between themselves.
Even an online organization called the United Hindu Council applauded the reading, claiming that Trump was “hinting at a much deeper history — and he’s quite right.. he pointed at the centuries-old religious fault lines caused by Islamist extremism,” which have deeply stricken Kashmir’s history and continue to fuel violence today.
Some experts’ more nuanced interpretations of Trump’s statements about the “I’ll leave Bangladesh to the prime minister ( Modi)” remark underscore how weak the latter’s position is is in light of his recent visit to Washington in February when he was asked about the Dhaka regime change. He has also previously suggested that India should take charge of the Pakistan situation.
Christine Fair, a long-standing South Asia analyst with deep insights into Pakistan’s use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy, supports Trump’s “free hand to India” interpretation of the most recent comment. That’s the right message to send, even if it was accidentally sent. Why should the US try to restrain India by bailing out Pakistan? She noted in a post on X that Pakistan needs to be taught a lesson by India.
Even the State Department, which has historically rushed out comments asking both sides to exercise restraint, has remained largely silent, taking a cue from the President. Even as Trump was yelling about Russia and Ukraine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted a photo of a peace agreement created by Washington between the Congo and Rwanda on Friday.
Trump bragged about the Congo-Rwanda treaty as “big news coming out of Africa,” but he also claimed that” I am also involved in settling violent wars and conflicts,” and that” we have done an unprecedented job in getting them SETTLED or put them in position for PEACE.”
No word on what Washington had frequently called a “nuclear flashpoint” in response to what has long been a plot by Pakistan to entice US intervention. Other than” they’ll figure it out one way or the other,”
