'India Doesn't Need To Fear Turkish Or Saudi Interventions In A Future India-Pakistan Conflict'

'It beggars belief that Saudi Arabia would deploy military force against India, a top partner and market.'

During a recent visit to Srinagar, US Ambassador to India, Sergio Gor told reporters that Jammu and Kashmir is an important part of India and an incredibly beautiful place.

Pakistan summoned US Charge d'Affaires Natalie Baker and lodged a 'strong demarche' over remarks by Sergio Gor regarding Jammu and Kashmir during his visit to the union territory.

"By going to Srinagar and praising Kashmir for being so peaceful and beautiful, he helped uphold Delhi's position that Jammu and Kashmir has been normalised since the Article 370 revocation," says Michael Kugelman, senior fellow, Asia Atlantic Council and a foreign policy expert on South Asia.

"But this message is unlikely to have harmful effects on Islamabad or Beijing. Yes, Gor's visit to Jammu and Kashmir -- and especially his comments about it -- didn't go down well in Pakistan," Mr. Kugelman tells Rediff's Archana Masih in an e-mail interview.

What does the Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan Mecca Pact mean for India? What does India have to be cautious about in this strategic formation?
Is there are possibility of Saudi Arabia and Turkey intervening in a future India-Pakistan conflict?

The pact means a lot for India, but its meaning also shouldn't be overstated.

The pact solidifies the growing role -- and security provider function -- of Pakistan in the Middle East.

Not to mention, the pact brings Pakistan even closer to Saudi Arabia, one of India's fastest growing partners in the Middle East, and to Turkey, one of the few countries in the Middle East with which India has shaky relations, though India-Turkey ties have stabilised a bit over the last year.

But on the other hand, this pact doesn't mean India is being locked out of the evolving geopolitics of the Middle East. On the contrary. India continues to have strong ties with nearly every country in the Middle East, including -- crucially -- Israel.

India is also a big part of the changing geoeconomic architecture in the Middle East, such as IMEEC and the I2U2 quad. If the region ever sees more stability, these initiatives will move forward, and India will be a major beneficiary.

Not to mention, India doesn't need to fear Turkish or Saudi interventions in a future India-Pakistan conflict.

It beggars belief that Saudi Arabia would deploy military force against India, a top partner and market.

Turkey's relations with India aren't nearly as close as Saudi Arabia's are, but Turkey would have no interest in getting dragged into a conflict with two nuclear armed rivals in South Asia.

With Bangladesh showing interest in the pact, are we seeing the emergence of an Islamic NATO?

It's not an Islamic NATO, and it's unlikely to become one, because it's unrealistic to think its signatories -- present or future -- would act on the Article 5-like language allegedly in the agreement that views an attack on one member as an attack on all (I say allegedly because the full text of the agreement still hasn't been released, and all we have to go by for now is a joint statement and other public messaging from the three signatories).

I also wouldn't refer to it as Islamic at all, because the motivations for the pact are not religious, they're purely geopolitical, and in fact quite practical: The pact members, even though they all have good ties with the US, fear that Washington can't be depended on to provide deterrence in the Middle East, and so they've decided to take things into their own hands and try to do this themselves.

And for all the talk of the US worrying about a pact that will further marginalise the Abraham Accords and reduce US influence in the region: The White House is likely quite pleased with this deal, because it entails top US allies doing the type of burden-sharing that Trump himself has said he'd like to see US allies doing more of.

As a sharp analyst of the region, what is your interpretation of US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor's visit to two of India's most strategic frontiers: 1. Kashmir, and 2. Ladakh

The Kashmir and Ladakh visits are the latest iteration of Gor's one man mission to repair the US-India relationship. Gor is clearly a champion of India and its partnership with the US; this was clear from his glowing comments about the relationship in his Senate confirmation hearings to become ambassador to India.

Once he arrived in Delhi in January, he hit the ground running, with a range of high-level engagements and a flurry of public diplomacy and messaging with praise for India and US-India relations.

That's the backdrop we should use in viewing his trips to Kashmir and Ladakh. His visits to these regions, which, of course, are disputed in the view of Islamabad and Beijing, underscores his commitment to doing things that resonate well in New Delhi.

By going to Srinagar and praising Kashmir for being so peaceful and beautiful, he helped uphold Delhi's position that Jammu and Kashmir has been normalised since the Article 370 revocation.

And by going to Ladakh, the site of the 2020 India-China border clash, he signaled his solidarity with New Delhi -- even if the forcefulness of this signal was somewhat undercut by Gor's decision not to meet the Dalai Lama.

What is the strategic significance of this engagement? What message does it have for 1. Pakistan and 2. China?

The message he was sending shouldn't be seen through the lens of 2nd or 3rd countries. Plain and simple, Gor wanted to reassert the strength of the US partnership with India.

But this message is unlikely to have harmful effects on Islamabad or Beijing. Yes, Gor's visit to Jammu and Kashmir -- and especially his comments about it -- didn't go down well in Pakistan.

But at the end of the day, Islamabad knows that the Trump administration, at least for now, is committed to partnership with Pakistan -- a partnership important for Pakistan's leadership, due to considerations around financial and security aid, among other incentives. In that sense, Gor's visit to Kashmir didn't damage US-Pakistan ties.

As for his visit to Ladakh, certainly Beijing would have preferred that he didn't go.

But Gor's decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama was a key concession to Beijing, and it shows how Washington didn't want to do anything to provoke China, and especially soon before a key expected meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.

It's also an indication, perhaps, of an ongoing tendency in this second Trump administration to treat China with kid gloves -- likely because it knows that if sufficiently provoked, Beijing could retaliate against the US by leveraging its global economic clout -- including its dominance of supply chains tied to rare earths -- in ways that hurt US economic interests.

It also marked the first political meeting between a US envoy and a J&K chief minister after nearly 15 years.
Seven years after the abrogation of Article 370 and the fact that Gor called 'Kashmir, an important part of India' what does this indicate about America's position on Kashmir?
Has the US pragmatically accepted Kashmir's post-2019 reality?

I don't think there's any change in US policy, which over the last few decades has essentially been taking a hands off role and treating Kashmir as an India-Pakistan bilateral matter. Gor, in my view, said Kashmir is an important part of India as part of his broader charm offensive to bolster ties with New Delhi.

If you consider this comment, and also ones about Kashmir's beauty and how the US will review its travel advisory level for Kashmir, it all seems like part of this continuing effort to simply do things that will go down well in Delhli, where a large trust gap is in place with the US -- one that Gor wants to narrow if not eliminate.

Not to mention, Gor said Kashmir was an important part of India, not an integral part of India -- meaning he avoided using the word that Indian officials tend to use, which suggests that Gor was not actually trying to articulate the Indian position.

How would you describe the evolution of US' stance on Kashmir over the years?

It's remained fairly consistent in recent decades. In the early years post-Partition, there was an avid desire in Washington to actively mediate and try to resolve the issue.

But in more recent decades, US administrations have taken a more hands off role, not playing a direct mediation role and instead encouraging India and Pakistan to work things out themselves.

To be sure, Trump has shaken things up, with his multiple offers to mediate the dispute. Ironically, Gor's comment, taken literally, appears to directly contradict the position of his boss -- given that if he believes Kashmir is an important part of India, then there's no dispute for the US to offer to help resolve.

In reality, Gor was not taking a new US position, and Trump's offers of mediation shouldn't be taken that seriously.

US policy on Kashmir continues to revolve around taking a hands off position -- even though the US, during a conflict triggered by Kashmir, including Operation Sindoor, will not shy away from diplomatically intervening to call for de-escalation, albeit not to the extent that Trump has claimed the US did during the conflict last year.

Does Gor's statement on Kashmir carry greater significance because he is seen as being close to President Trump and also holds portfolio of both US ambassador to India and special envoy for South and Central Asia?
How does this play out as far as US-Pakistan relations are concerned, especially in the background of the US not yet appointing an ambassador in Pakistan, while Trump also has warm relations with Field Marshal Asim Munir?

Indeed, what Gor said was significant, but more because of who he is -- a close confidant to Trump and the South Asia special envoy, as well as US ambassador to India -- than because of what his words mean. As I explained earlier, I don't see Gor's comment on Kashmir as an indication of a new US policy.

It's just part of his broader charm offensive to reduce the US-India trust grap and bolster bilateral relations.

To be sure, Pakistan summoned US Charge D'Affaires Nathalie Baker in Islamabad because of what Gor said -- not something Pakistan does with US officials that much these days.

But this summoning is more performative than an indication of a damaged relationship. Pakistan has long called Kashmir its 'jugular vein', and it is rare when a US official says anything about Kashmir at odds with Pakistan's position.

For these reasons, Islamabad had no choice but to summon the US diplomat. But that was it.

There's been no further statements or actions from Islamabad against the US. That's because Pakistan needs to keep its relationship with the US on track.

Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff