modi-stands-vindicated-on-ceasefire-he-didn-t-surrender

Contrary to the claims Congress leader Rahul Gandhi made at the top of his voice a month ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not “surrender” before US President Donald Trump. “Narendra surrender”, Gandhi would shout joyously at the top of his voice, as the two words rhymed and of course sounded like music to his own ears. Modi did not respond or react. He never does. Not at least to Rahul.

 

The scion of the “royal” Gandhi dynasty, and his acolytes like KC Venugopal, Jairam Ramesh, as also Supriya Shrinate, another of the “nine gems” in the Rahul’s ‘Mughal court’, kept on shouting that Modi had surrendered. The moment Trump would claim that he brokered/ facilitated the ceasefire ­- he has claimed it at least 40 times so far - the “gems” would come out with a reaction of apparent “sadistic pleasure” that he (Trump) was embarrassing Modi.

 

The moment Trump imposed tariffs on India, he belied and contradicted himself. He claimed that he brokered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan by offering trade as an incentive. Presuming that India had “compromised” for trade and tariffs, he should not have imposed punitive tariffs on the country, since India, according to him, had accepted “his” “ceasefire” offer.

 

Two more developments have vindicated Modi’s position that neither did he surrender, nor did he compromise on India’s position that no third-party mediation will be acceptable on Kashmir. That way Congress leaders, Rahul in particular, owe an apology not only to the Prime Minister, but also to the nation, for showing the country in a poor light.  After all, the Prime Minister represents the entire nation, not just a particular political party.

 

First it was the revelation made in a leading US daily, New York Times, which carried a comprehensive and elaborate report on the front page in its Sunday (August 31) edition, saying that Trump was annoyed with Modi because he (Modi) neither accepted his mediation claims nor the subtle request to recommend him (Trump) for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

As it turned out, Trump called Modi on June 17. It was reportedly a long phone call. In the course of conversation, Trump proudly claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire, which Modi rightfully rejected. This was followed by Trump’s not-so-subtle demand that India, like Pakistan, should also recommend him for the Nobel Peace Prize. This would mean acknowledging the US role in the ceasefire. Modi reportedly declined the demand and then all hell broke loose, as “hell had no fury like Trump scorned.”

 

The second development was the admission by Ishaq Dar, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, saying it was Pakistan, which requested ceasefire after India caused substantial damage to Pakistani defence installations. Although he had made these claims some time ago, these were highlighted again in the aftermath of the New York Times disclosures.

 

Also read: How SCO is a threat to US-led global order and why it matters

 

Dar was quoted saying by various media organisations, including Al Jazeera, “unfortunately, India once again launched missile strikes at 2.30 am. They attacked the Nur Khan air base and Shorkot air base... Within 45 minutes, Saudi Prince Faisal called me. He said he had then just learnt about my conversation with (US Secretary of State) Marco Rubio. He asked if he was authorised to talk to (India's External Affairs Minister) S Jaishankar and convey that we are ready if they (India) stop. I said yes, brother, you can. He then called me back, saying he had conveyed the same to Jaishankar."

 

India had consistently maintained that it was not the United States, but Pakistan which directly approached for ceasefire. The Director General of Military Operations, Pakistan, had directly approached his Indian counterpart for ceasefire, which India agreed to. This was confirmed by the Pakistan Foreign Minister himself.

 

Given his characteristic brash and uncouth approach, Trump rushed with the announcement about the ceasefire, with the obvious intent to strengthen his claims for the Nobel Peace Prize. He did not wait for India and Pakistan to announce it themselves.

 

While India consistently rejected his claims, Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir, for no hidden reasons, started playing second fiddle to Trump by acknowledging the US role in the ceasefire, when there was none. Munir had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

First, it was his personal gain that he won the confidence of the US President, which may help him in realising his ultimate, but hidden ambition of becoming another Pakistan military dictator. Second, it also helped Pakistan to come closer to the US after over two decades. Munir’s game plan was not lost on Pakistan's political establishment, which though directly not contradicting the US or Munir, did drop subtle hints which were at variance with Trump’s claims.

 

Both, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar’s statements during and in the aftermath of the war dropped enough hints, though subtle, which contradicted Trump’s and Munir’s claims. Both of them must have strong reasons to contradict Munir, who has outsized the political establishment by leaps and bounds and now remains a perennial and perpetual threat to it. So much so that after his luncheon meeting with US President Donlad Trump, Munir got emboldened to the extent to hurl a nuclear threat not only at India, but half of the world.

 

As things are gradually unravelling, Prime Minister Modi stands vindicated. He maintained a statesman-like grace by not contradicting Trump, his former friend publicly. Actually, Trump may have ended up helping Modi even with betrayal. The imposition of punitive tariffs on India was actually vindictively slapped just because Modi did not compromise on India’s national interest. It was not India’s diplomatic failure, but Trump’s betrayal and imagined sense of grievance against his friend Modi over his refusal to endorse and recommend him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Western media outlets like the New York Times or The Economist are no fans of Modi. Rather, both are his staunchest critics. However, following the imposition of unjustified tariffs on India, both these organisations seem to have altered their opinions. Otherwise, it is difficult for anyone to ignore the fact that while Trump imposed 25 per cent extra tariffs on India for importing Russian oil, but spared China, despite it importing more Russian oil than India. The motive and intention were not lost on anyone, including Modi's critics.

 

This must serve as a lesson for India’s Opposition parties, the Congress in particular, that they must learn to believe their own Prime Minister more than anyone else. Leave aside apologising to Modi, will they make corrections that they were wrong in believing what Trump claimed. Because, by blindly accepting Trump’s claims, they may have tried to embarrass Modi, but they also showed the entire country in a poor light. So much so, the Congress was not even prepared to accept that Pakistan was so badly bashed by Indian defence forces that it wanted the ceasefire and approached India directly.