SRINAGAR: Reigniting a diplomatic row over the nature of recent peace between India and Pakistan, US President Donald Trump, on Friday, once again claimed credit for brokering the ceasefire between the nuclear-armed neighbours. He asserted that trade diplomacy under his leadership had helped avert what could have escalated into a nuclear conflict in South Asia.
Speaking to reporters, Trump said, “I think the deal I’m most proud of is the fact that we’re dealing with India, we’re dealing with Pakistan, and we were able to stop potentially a nuclear war through trade as opposed to bullets… Nobody talks about it. But we had a very nasty potential war going on between Pakistan and India. And now, if you look, they’re doing fine.”
His remarks referred to the dramatic de-escalation that occurred on May 10 following India’s Operation Sindoor, launched in response to the April 22 Pahalgam massacre that killed 26 civilians. The Indian military offensive targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan, triggering retaliatory shelling, drone attacks, and strikes across the Line of Control and International Border.
Trump has consistently claimed that his administration’s intervention, primarily through trade diplomacy, was instrumental in halting the conflict. “Pakistani representatives are coming in next week. We’re very close to making a deal with India. And I wouldn’t have any interest in making a deal with either if they were going to be at war with each other,” he said on Friday.
This is not the first time the US President has made such claims. On May 10, just hours before any Indian government confirmation of a ceasefire, Trump had posted on Truth Social, “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.”
On May 12, he told reporters, “I said, come on, we’re going to do a lot of trade with you guys. So stop it. If you don’t stop it, we’re not going to do any trade.” He went on to claim that this tactic succeeded where “bullets” might have failed.
His Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick repeated these assertions in a formal submission to the US Court of International Trade last week, claiming the ceasefire was “only achieved after President Trump interceded and offered both nations trading access with the United States.”
However, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has firmly rejected Trump’s version of events. In a statement, the MEA said India has a “long-standing national position that any issues pertaining to the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir have to be addressed by India and Pakistan bilaterally.”
The ministry also noted that “the issue of trade did not come up in any of these discussions” between Indian and US leaders from the start of Operation Sindoor on May 7 to the cessation of hostilities on May 10.
Indian sources have maintained that the ceasefire understanding was reached through direct military channels, notably between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan, without any third-party involvement.
Nevertheless, Trump has continued to frame the India-Pakistan ceasefire as a product of his trade strategy and diplomatic intervention. “We settled that whole thing, and I think I settled it through trade,” he said during a press conference alongside the South African president earlier this month. “I called them both. It’s something good.”
His repeated references to India and Pakistan as equivalent actors in the conflict, and his failure to mention terrorism as a root cause, have triggered political backlash in India.
On Saturday, the opposition Congress party sharply criticised the Modi government’s silence on the matter. “This is the 11th time in 21 days that Modi’s ‘great friend’ has claimed he got the four-day India-Pakistan war to stop,” Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh posted on X, formerly Twitter. “When will the PM speak up?”
Ramesh accused the prime minister of “ignoring” Trump’s narrative, asking whether “Donaldbhai” was lying or “speaking even 50 per cent truth.”
The controversy also comes at a time when Trump’s sweeping use of presidential powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is under judicial scrutiny. Lutnick argued in court that undermining the president’s trade powers could jeopardise “tenuous ceasefires” like the one between India and Pakistan and threaten regional security.
Analysts say Trump’s rhetoric undermines India’s carefully maintained position of bilateralism on Kashmir and foreign affairs. The equation of India with Pakistan, the omission of terrorism as a trigger, and public boasts of “settling” the crisis through trade pressure have created an uncomfortable spotlight for the Indian government, which has thus far refrained from directly confronting the US president.
Nonetheless, as the ceasefire continues to hold, the diplomatic fallout from Trump’s self-styled intervention is far from over, especially with opposition voices demanding clarity on whether foreign pressure influenced India’s strategic choices.
