The India-Pakistan rivalry remains one of the most volatile conflicts in global politics. With diplomatic ties severed, trade halted, and cross-border hostility simmering, the situation resembles a managed freeze. In this state, both parties maintain a tense but controlled status quo, with more than a path to peace. 

The United States has shown interest in mediation. Still, the key question is whether external intervention can help or whether it risks undermining the principle of bilateralism that has long governed the relationship.

Mediation vs. Bilateralism

Calls for a U.S.-led summit, similar to Camp David, reappear whenever tensions rise. The idea is attractive: two rivals confined with the U.S. President, working out differences. But India has never accepted third-party mediation, citing the Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. For New Delhi, inviting Washington into the room means internationalising Kashmir, something it firmly rejects.

Washington also lacks the leverage it once had. India is now too powerful to be pressured into concessions, while Pakistan considers America unreliable after decades of fluctuating support. A high-profile summit could easily backfire, revealing irreconcilable differences rather than resolving them.

If the U.S. has a role, it is in quiet facilitation: guiding restraint during crises, supporting humanitarian exchanges, and encouraging small steps rather than big-bang diplomacy.

Trade and Credibility

Complicating matters further are trade disputes. The U.S. has imposed tariffs on both India and Pakistan, despite India's role as a significant trading partner and regional ally. For Delhi, this is more than an economic slight; it undermines America’s credibility as a "trusted partner" and raises questions about its neutrality.

For Pakistan, tariffs reinforce a long-standing perception that U.S. policy is transactional. The result is a triangular dynamic where India questions U.S. reliability, Pakistan leans further toward China, and Washington undermines its own position as a potential mediator.

Pakistan's Kashmir Playbook

For decades, Pakistan's military has followed a strategy of provocation in Kashmir: militant infiltration, periodic escalations, and attempts to internationalise the conflict. Under Pakistan Army chief, General Asim Munir, this approach continues, but it is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

India has enhanced its counter-infiltration and retaliatory capabilities. The revocation of Article 370 in 2019 reflected Delhi's commitment to treat Kashmir as an internal issue, regardless of international reactions. Meanwhile, global support for Pakistan's stance has diminished.

The costs for Islamabad are severe: economic strain, diplomatic isolation, and a military-first mindset that undermines civilian politics. A sustainable course correction would require Pakistan to reduce militant activity, reopen trade with India, and empower civilian leaders. Without such steps, Islamabad's strategy will remain counterproductive.

Domestic Scapegoating

The rivalry continues not only due to policy decisions but also because both sides see political benefits. In India, the "Pakistan threat" boosts electoral support and strengthens nationalist stories. In Pakistan, the military uses India to justify maintaining control over civilian institutions.

This mutual scapegoating has become a structural barrier to peace. India's operational posture, exemplified by Op Sindoor, keeps the military in constant readiness, which in turn limits diplomatic flexibility. Pakistan's military dominance ensures that hostility remains ingrained in the system.      

Changing this dynamic involves rebalancing domestic narratives. In India, presenting Pakistan less as an existential threat and more as a troubled neighbour could lessen the political costs of engagement. In Pakistan, reducing the military's dominance over India policy would open space for pragmatic dialogue.

Moving Beyond the Deadlock

The path forward is not dramatic summits or sweeping settlements but modest, incremental steps: 

- Backchannel talks between security officials.

- Confidence-building measures on humanitarian and environmental issues.

- Limited resumption of trade to create economic constituencies for peace.

- Reinforcing military hotlines and ceasefire mechanisms.

- External facilitation focused on support, not imposition.

Neither side will give up its core positions anytime soon. But endless hostility drains resources, distorts politics, and risks escalation between two nuclear powers. The U.S. cannot mediate its way to a solution, but it can play a supporting role in nudging the two states toward coexistence. 

Reviving Backchannels 

The India-Pakistan conflict persists due to structural incentives, domestic politics, and long-standing mistrust. Pakistan's Kashmir strategy is ineffective; India's military stance is becoming more aggressive; and U.S. trade policies damage its credibility. Breaking the deadlock will not come from summits or tariffs but from the slow, unglamorous work of backchannels, small agreements, and shifts in narratives at home.

Until then, the rivalry will be less a problem to solve than a condition to manage a risky balance that policymakers in Delhi, Islamabad, and Washington cannot afford to ignore.

(The writer, an Indian Army veteran, is a strategic analyst. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at manojchannan@gmail.com; linkedIn www.linkedin.com/in/manoj-channan-3412635; X @manojchannan )