This article has been published at: https://newsarenaindia.com/opinion/no-mediators-no-compromises-just-stop-terror/45338

India’s refusal to entertain any third-party mediation in its dealings with Pakistan is not stubbornness, it’s strategic clarity.

There is a reason why India continues to stand its ground when it comes to dialogue with Pakistan. Not out of diplomatic vanity, nor to stonewall peace but because dialogue, when overshadowed by the spectre of terror, is not diplomacy. It is delusion.

MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal reminded the world that New Delhi remains committed to bilateral dialogue but only when cross-border terrorism ceases. And yet, in a now-familiar manoeuvre, Pakistan has attempted to internationalise the matter again, reportedly seeking Saudi Arabia’s involvement as a third-party mediator. The intent is clear: shift the focus, reframe the narrative and evade accountability. India, rightly has refused to play along.

To understand this position, one must return to the principle that governs it: bilateralism. Enshrined in the 1972 Simla Agreement and reaffirmed in subsequent moments of crisis, the notion that India and Pakistan must resolve their disputes bilaterally is not just diplomatic etiquette, it is an assertion of sovereignty.

When the US President Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire, India was swift to clarify that it was not the handiwork of Washington but a quiet understanding between New Delhi and Islamabad.

Well, extended applause is irrelevant if internal resolve is absent.

Each time peace appears within reach, violence intervenes. And yet, India has kept the door to dialogue ajar, never shut, but grounded.

As Prime Minister Modi has firmly stated on multiple occasions, “Terror and talks cannot go together.” The message is not one of hostility, but of principle and preconditions: dismantle terror, then we will talk.

In this context, Pakistan’s attempt to bring in Saudi Arabia is not just unnecessary, it is inappropriate. Saudi Arabia is no neutral arbiter, it has deep-rooted ties to Pakistan, both religious and strategic.

To suggest that it could act as a dispassionate broker is to stretch credibility. But more fundamentally, India does not require a broker. Not when the matter is one of national security. Not when the house is still burning.

During the Kargil war in 1999, backchannel diplomacy played a significant role in de-escalating the conflict and ultimately leading to the withdrawal of Pakistani troops.  Mediation, especially in this region, has often served only to cloud accountability and offer both sides the illusion of progress, while leaving the core issues untouched.

Pakistan may knock on the doors of Riyadh and Washington, but India will remain steadfast. No third-party interventions. No diluted demands. It is not a temporary peace that India demands but rather a pending human right call and a permanent solution for terrorism.

Peace, after all, is not performed. It is prepared for. And India is simply waiting for Pakistan to do the same.

The moment now calls for a structural change to maintain sustainable peace between the two nations.

India’s refusal to entertain any third-party mediation in its dealings with Pakistan is not stubbornness, it’s strategic clarity.

There is a reason why India continues to stand its ground when it comes to dialogue with Pakistan. Not out of diplomatic vanity, nor to stonewall peace but because dialogue, when overshadowed by the spectre of terror, is not diplomacy. It is delusion.

MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal reminded the world that New Delhi remains committed to bilateral dialogue but only when cross-border terrorism ceases. And yet, in a now-familiar manoeuvre, Pakistan has attempted to internationalise the matter again, reportedly seeking Saudi Arabia’s involvement as a third-party mediator. The intent is clear: shift the focus, reframe the narrative and evade accountability. India, rightly has refused to play along.

To understand this position, one must return to the principle that governs it: bilateralism. Enshrined in the 1972 Simla Agreement and reaffirmed in subsequent moments of crisis, the notion that India and Pakistan must resolve their disputes bilaterally is not just diplomatic etiquette, it is an assertion of sovereignty.

When the US President Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire, India was swift to clarify that it was not the handiwork of Washington but a quiet understanding between New Delhi and Islamabad.

Well, extended applause is irrelevant if internal resolve is absent.

Each time peace appears within reach, violence intervenes. And yet, India has kept the door to dialogue ajar, never shut, but grounded.

As Prime Minister Modi has firmly stated on multiple occasions, “Terror and talks cannot go together.” The message is not one of hostility, but of principle and preconditions: dismantle terror, then we will talk.

In this context, Pakistan’s attempt to bring in Saudi Arabia is not just unnecessary, it is inappropriate. Saudi Arabia is no neutral arbiter, it has deep-rooted ties to Pakistan, both religious and strategic.

To suggest that it could act as a dispassionate broker is to stretch credibility. But more fundamentally, India does not require a broker. Not when the matter is one of national security. Not when the house is still burning.

During the Kargil war in 1999, backchannel diplomacy played a significant role in de-escalating the conflict and ultimately leading to the withdrawal of Pakistani troops.  Mediation, especially in this region, has often served only to cloud accountability and offer both sides the illusion of progress, while leaving the core issues untouched.

Pakistan may knock on the doors of Riyadh and Washington, but India will remain steadfast. No third-party interventions. No diluted demands. It is not a temporary peace that India demands but rather a pending human right call and a permanent solution for terrorism.

Peace, after all, is not performed. It is prepared for. And India is simply waiting for Pakistan to do the same.

The moment now calls for a structural change to maintain sustainable peace between the two nations.