Others see little value in such visibility for its own sake, cautioning that mediation without leverage or invitation can backfire. They believe India’s interests are better served by quiet diplomacy and strategic distance.
That view finds echo in the government. In an all-party meeting last week, Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar reportedly dismissed Pakistan’s role as “dalali”, external (brokerage), noting it has played such a part since 1981, including in US-Taliban talks.
“We don’t run around asking countries what kind of brokerage we can do,” he is reported to have said.
But for some analysts, the intensity of the debate in Delhi says as much about perception as policy.
At its core, argues Happymon Jacob of Shiv Nadar University, the issue is not strategy so much as psychology.
“The response in India has been one of competitive anxiety: if Pakistan can, why not us!,” he noted in an op-edit, external.
“At best, that is a fear of missing out. At worst, it’s jealousy of a smaller neighbour attracting the kind of attention some in our strategic community believe India deserves. But neither the fear of missing out nor jealousy is a sound basis for good foreign policy.”
Michael Kugelman, a senior fellow for South Asia at the Atlantic Council, also pushes back on the “zero-sum approach of India-Pakistan rivalry”, external, arguing India was never really in the running to mediate and is unlikely to step in without a formal invite.
Pakistan’s diplomatic burst, he suggests, may be short-lived and limited to a go-between role, with mistrust making direct US-Iran talks unlikely anytime soon. As he puts it, “this misrepresents the state of play”.
If India was never really in the mediation race, the more relevant question, many say, is what role it should play instead.
For Ajay Bisaria, former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, the answer lies in recognising both India’s strengths and its constraints.
