When Donald Trump boldly declares that the long-standing dispute between Pakistan and India has been resolved, the statement raises more questions than it answers. Speaking to American troops stationed at a military base in Doha, the former US president confidently proclaimed that he had persuaded both South Asian neighbors to “stop your wars, start your trade.” According to Trump, this straightforward message has been warmly received, bringing a newfound optimism that commerce can replace conflict. On the surface, this may sound like an inspiring call for peace, but to those who live with the realities of the India-Pakistan conflict, such remarks come across as simplistic and disconnected from the complexities on the ground.
The truth is, the dispute between these two nuclear-armed neighbors is far from resolved. Decades of hostility, political tensions, and violent skirmishes have left deep scars on both sides. Trade and economic cooperation cannot simply flourish when distrust clouds every border crossing and the shadow of violence looms over every interaction. Trump’s call for Pakistan and India to embrace commerce instead of conflict overlooks the enduring challenges that prevent such a transformation. It’s easy to speak of “stop your wars, start your trade” in a soundbite, but far harder to dismantle decades of entrenched animosity, mistrust, and geopolitical rivalry that have defined their relationship.
Furthermore, Trump’s appeal to Apple’s chief executive to “build your products in America, not India” adds another layer to the conversation. While this message may satisfy domestic manufacturing lobbyists eager to bring jobs back to the United States, it reveals a certain naïveté about how modern global supply chains operate and ignores the economic aspirations of emerging markets like India. The world’s economy is interconnected, and countries such as India are eager to position themselves as key players in manufacturing and innovation. Dismissing these ambitions not only undermines diplomatic goodwill but also complicates the very trade cooperation that Trump claims to champion.
Meanwhile, developments on the ground tell a more nuanced story. In Islamabad, the newly appointed foreign minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar announced a cautious but notable extension of the ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) between Pakistan and India until May 18. This extension followed a series of incremental steps, with earlier ceasefires lasting only a few days before being renewed. Dar recalled how talks between the military operations directors on both sides had gradually pushed the truce forward, accompanied by commitments to reduce alert levels and pursue confidence-building measures.
Yet, despite these tentative signs of dialogue, Dar was quick to underline India’s “old habit” of blame-shifting. He reminded Pakistan’s Senate that following the Pahalgam attack, India had rushed to accuse Pakistan, prompting a retaliatory response during which Pakistan claimed to have shot down five Indian aircraft without suffering any losses. His remarks reflected not only the ongoing mutual recriminations but also the way each side views the conflict through the lens of national pride and security.
The Pakistani parliament’s unanimous resolution condemning India’s unilateral actions, coupled with Islamabad’s consultations with the international community, further underscores how deeply this conflict remains entrenched. Dar’s comments that foreign leaders recognize Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power served as a pointed reminder that any escalation carries existential risks for the region. This sober acknowledgment of the stakes involved should serve as a warning against complacency in international diplomacy.
Across the border, the Indian perspective, articulated by Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, paints a different picture. Jaishankar insisted that relations with Pakistan must remain strictly bilateral and should not be influenced by outside powers, including the United States. He affirmed that discussions on counterterrorism cooperation would continue but noted that the long-standing Indus Waters Treaty, a critical agreement governing water sharing between the two countries, remains suspended. His remarks also hinted at India’s broader strategic priorities, particularly its complex trade negotiations with Washington, indicating that Delhi will chart its own path regardless of external pressures.
This exchange of statements from Islamabad and New Delhi reveals the delicate and often tense choreography of regional diplomacy. Both sides claim progress, yet simultaneously point fingers at one another, keeping the conflict alive in a cycle of accusation and defensiveness. Third parties, including the United States, often attempt to broker peace through catchy soundbites or brief ceasefire agreements, but these gestures fall short of addressing the deep-rooted issues at play. Ultimately, peace between Pakistan and India requires far more than diplomatic posturing or brief pauses in violence. It demands sustained political will, mutual respect, and a genuine commitment to reconciliation.
Commerce can play a role in building bridges, but it cannot replace the fundamental trust and confidence that must underpin any lasting peace. Economic cooperation is a powerful tool, but it is only effective when the political and security frameworks allow it to thrive. For the millions of people living in the shadow of this conflict, peace cannot be reduced to a headline or a presidential soundbite. It is a daily necessity—families separated by borders, communities living under the threat of violence, and generations who have grown up amid hostility and fear. Only when political leaders on both sides step beyond rhetoric and take meaningful steps to address underlying grievances can there be hope for a future where commerce truly replaces conflict.
The narrative of “Stop Your Wars, Start Your Trade” is a hopeful one, but hope without action risks becoming an empty promise. Genuine resolution in South Asia demands patience, perseverance, and above all, an understanding that peace is a complex, fragile process—not a momentary announcement. Until then, the people of Pakistan and India will continue to live with the uncertainty and sorrow that come with unresolved conflict, while foreign capitals offer fleeting glimpses of peace that never quite take root.
