At a time when attention has shifted to Islamabad for US-Iran talks, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has made it clear that India is not in a race with Pakistan over its role. For him, the outcome matters more than who gets the credit.
Speaking after the National History Conference, Tharoor said, “I don't see any competition with Pakistan when it comes to this,” adding, “who brings about the peace won't matter if peace comes.”
Leaders from United States and Iran are in Islamabad for talks hosted by Pakistan. US Vice President J. D. Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf are part of the delegations, along with senior officials.
The meeting follows a two-week ceasefire that has already come under pressure after fresh strikes in Lebanon.
Tharoor said Pakistan’s involvement is shaped by its own concerns. “Pakistan has ‘skin in the game’ as it shares a 900 km-long border with Iran and also has a significant Shia population,” he said.
He pointed out that if tensions rise, Pakistan will face the immediate fallout. “All the refugees will come to Pakistan, and therefore, its stake is different in this game from that of India.”
For India, he stressed the need to stay involved. “I think we should monitor what is going on very carefully. Our government, our prime minister, our foreign minister, our petroleum minister, everyone is in touch with leaders of that region because that is in our interest. We cannot afford to be disengaged; we have to be very much actively involved, and I will say that we should absolutely hope that peace comes as a result of these efforts.”
He repeated that the focus should remain on the result. “I don't think there is any need to worry about who brings about the peace. Who brings about the peace won't matter if peace comes. If peace fails, on the other hand, then we should analyse very carefully the reasons for that failure and see if there is any way that we can contribute to a different outcome.”
Tharoor also spoke about India’s broader role.
“A vacuum is dangerous; it hurts us in other ways also. As a leading voice of the Global South, India is a responsible stakeholder in the process of constructing a viable regional and global order and for that we cannot afford to be passive, we cannot just observe when fires are blazing in the neighbourhood, we would have to play an active role but it would have to be carefully considered role, one where we examine for ourselves what is the most useful contribution we can make,” he said.
He added that not every role needs to be public. “Sometimes, that useful contribution may truly be in silence. I have written that earlier. But today we are understandably more active in the region, three ministers are flying around, and the prime minister is on the phone. All of this is very good. We need to see much more of this because that engagement is what keeps us viable and potentially able to play a larger role that today we are not in a position to play.”
At the same time, he said Pakistan will have to address past concerns if it wants to be seen differently.
“If it wishes to be recognised as a peacemaker, then it must dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and the terrorist training camps located in their country, freeze their bank accounts, and arrest those leaders who roam about delivering hate speeches. Only then will we truly believe that a genuine change has taken place within you,” he said.
He also questioned a social media post by Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that briefly carried the line “Draft -- Pakistan's PM Message on X.”
“I do feel that Washington gave the message to Pakistan's PM to post it on X, or why would someone write 'Draft -- Pakistan's PM message'? The language and some phrases used in that message also pointed to the US involvement. The role that it is playing with the US, only Pakistan can play that,” Tharoor said.
At the conference, he also spoke about how history is shaped.
“More broadly, it lies with all of us, for the way a society remembers its past is inseparable from how it understands itself in the present. History is not simply inherited; it is interpreted, debated, and often contested,” he said.
