External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has delivered a comprehensive rebuttal to claims of American mediation in the recent India-Pakistan ceasefire, asserting that Indian military action alone compelled Pakistan to halt hostilities. Speaking to German media and parliamentary committees, Jaishankar emphasised that the cessation of cross-border firing resulted from direct military-to-military contact between the two nations, not foreign intervention.

His statements also highlighted concerning China-Pakistan defence cooperation, criticised Western nuclear escalation narratives, and outlined India's evolving relationships with European partners. The minister's remarks reflect India's assertive diplomatic posture following Operation Sindoor, which targeted terrorist infrastructure in response to the Pahalgam attack that killed 26 people, mostly Hindu tourists.

Military Action Over Mediation: India's Position On Ceasefire Dynamics

Jaishankar's most emphatic assertion centred on rejecting American claims of brokering the India-Pakistan ceasefire that ended three days of cross-border conflict in May 2025. In his interview with German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the External Affairs Minister stated unequivocally that "the cessation of firing was agreed between the military commanders of both sides through direct contact". He attributed Pakistan's decision to seek a ceasefire directly to India's military effectiveness, explaining that "the morning before, we effectively hit and incapacitated Pakistan's main airbases and air defence system". This tactical success, according to Jaishankar, forced Pakistan to acknowledge that continuing hostilities would prove counterproductive.

The minister's account directly contradicted claims made by the Trump administration, which had asserted credit for facilitating the de-escalation. Jaishankar told parliamentary committee members that when asked whom to thank for the cessation of hostilities, his response was clear: "I thank the Indian military because it was the Indian military action that made Pakistan say: We are ready to stop". During briefings to Members of Parliament, Jaishankar emphasised that the ceasefire resulted from "Pakistani Director General of Military Operations-level talks" initiated by Pakistan's DGMO with Indian armed forces. This military-to-military communication channel, he stressed, operated independently of any third-party mediation efforts.

The External Affairs Minister's briefings to parliamentary committees revealed India's consistent diplomatic messaging throughout the crisis. Sources indicated that Jaishankar conveyed to concerned foreign governments a straightforward position: "They fire, we fire. They stop, we stop". When US Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared intelligence suggesting Pakistan might launch a major strike, India's response was equally direct, with Jaishankar stating: "If Pakistan attempts a major offensive, it should be prepared for an equally strong counter-offensive". This firm stance reinforced India's commitment to proportional response while maintaining strategic autonomy in conflict management.

Operation Sindoor: Military Response

The military confrontation that necessitated the ceasefire arose from India's Operation Sindoor, launched in response to the April 22 terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam that killed 26 people, mostly Hindu tourists. India's response involved targeted airstrikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir on May 7, specifically aimed at destroying terrorist bases rather than escalating broader conflict. Jaishankar characterised these strikes as "very measured, carefully considered and non-escalating steps" designed to send a clear message about the consequences of supporting terrorism.

Pakistan's response to Operation Sindoor involved firing hundreds of drones at Indian military installations and civilian areas, prompting Indian retaliation against Pakistani military installations. The escalation included air force dogfights and significant damage to Pakistan's air defence capabilities. Jaishankar's descriptions of the conflict emphasised India's tactical superiority, noting that Indian forces were able to "disable their air defence systems" effectively. This military success ultimately led to Pakistan's military leadership reaching out to Indian counterparts to negotiate the ceasefire.

The operation's success in achieving its stated objectives while avoiding broader escalation demonstrated India's evolving military doctrine regarding cross-border terrorism. Jaishankar stressed that the strikes sent "a clear signal to the terrorists that there is a price to be paid for carrying out such attacks". The minister's characterisation of the operation as targeting "terrorist targets" rather than state infrastructure reflected India's careful calibration of military response to avoid unnecessary escalation while ensuring deterrent effect.

Rejecting Nuclear Escalation Narratives

Jaishankar expressed strong criticism of Western tendency to frame South Asian conflicts through the lens of potential nuclear escalation, calling such narratives both misleading and counterproductive. When asked how close the world came to nuclear conflict during the India-Pakistan stand-off, the minister responded with evident frustration: "Very, very far away. I'm frankly astonished by your question". He characterised the Western media's approach as automatically linking any South Asian conflict to nuclear risks, describing this narrative as "disturbing" because it "encourages terrible activities like terrorism".

The External Affairs Minister argued that this persistent nuclear framing creates a perverse incentive structure that actually enables terrorist activities. By suggesting that any response to terrorism in South Asia risks nuclear escalation, Jaishankar contended, Western observers inadvertently provide cover for terrorist organisations and their state sponsors. He pointedly noted that "much more is happening with the nuclear issue in your part of the world," redirecting attention to nuclear developments in Europe and other regions.

Jaishankar's response reflected broader Indian frustration with what New Delhi perceives as Western bias in conflict analysis. The minister emphasised that India's military actions were specifically calibrated to avoid escalation while achieving clear tactical objectives. His assertion that the conflict never approached nuclear thresholds challenged Western assumptions about South Asian strategic stability and highlighted India's confidence in its ability to manage regional conflicts responsibly.

China-Pakistan Defence Cooperation And Strategic Implications

When questioned about China's role in the India-Pakistan conflict, Jaishankar offered pointed observations about Beijing's defence relationship with Islamabad while stopping short of explicit accusations. He noted that "many of the weapons systems that Pakistan has are of Chinese origin and the two countries are very close," before adding significantly: "You can draw your conclusions from that". This diplomatic formulation allowed Jaishankar to highlight concerning patterns without making direct allegations about Chinese involvement in the conflict.

The minister's comments on China-Pakistan defence ties reflected broader Indian concerns about Beijing's role in enabling Pakistani military capabilities that could be used against India. The reference to Chinese-origin weapons systems in Pakistani arsenals underscored the complexity of the regional security environment, where China's support for Pakistan potentially complicates India's security calculations. Jaishankar's measured response suggested Indian awareness of Chinese influence while maintaining diplomatic space for engagement with Beijing on other issues.

International Alignments And Diplomatic Support

Jaishankar's briefings to parliamentary committees revealed significant international support for India's position during the recent crisis, contradicting Pakistani expectations of broader backing. The minister noted that "only Turkey and Azerbaijan stood openly with Pakistan," while "a large number of countries either publicly backed India or, at the very least, supported us on the issue of cross-border terrorism". This diplomatic alignment reflected growing international recognition of Pakistan's role in supporting terrorist activities and India's right to defensive action.

The limited international support for Pakistan's position during the conflict marked a notable shift from previous India-Pakistan crises, where Islamabad could typically count on broader Islamic world support. Jaishankar's observation about Turkey and Azerbaijan's isolated support for Pakistan suggested that even traditional Pakistani allies were reluctant to endorse actions that followed from terrorist attacks. This diplomatic isolation potentially reinforced the military pressure that led Pakistan to seek a ceasefire.

The minister's comments also highlighted the role of the United States during the crisis, acknowledging that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance had reached out to Indian leadership. However, Jaishankar emphasised that their role was "limited to expressing concern" rather than active mediation. India's message to all concerned parties remained consistent: Pakistani military leadership needed to communicate directly with Indian counterparts to end hostilities, which ultimately occurred through established military channels.

India-Europe Relations And Strategic Partnerships

Jaishankar's interactions with German media and officials during his European visit revealed both opportunities and challenges in India-Europe relations. The minister welcomed Germany's increasing role in global security, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, while expressing optimism about stronger India-Germany defence cooperation. However, he acknowledged that "the conditions are not yet perfect" and that India continues pressing for deeper technological collaboration with European partners.

The External Affairs Minister criticised what he characterised as European double standards in approaching different relationships, particularly regarding India's continued ties with Russia. When questioned about India's relationship with Moscow, Jaishankar responded pointedly: "You sound as if you can do business with states that are different, but we cannot... My neighbour Pakistan has caused every conceivable problem under the sun... But doesn't Germany also do business with Pakistan?". This response highlighted Indian frustration with Western criticism of its strategic autonomy while European nations maintain their own complex relationships.

Jaishankar also addressed Europe's evolving approach to global affairs, noting positive changes in European thinking toward greater independence and resilience. He observed that Europe was beginning to move away from assumptions that its concerns automatically translate into global priorities, suggesting a more multipolar approach to international relations. The minister expressed confidence in Germany's growing engagement with Indo-Pacific issues and its understanding of India's concerns regarding China.

Conclusion

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's comprehensive response to questions about the India-Pakistan ceasefire has clarified several important aspects of India's current strategic thinking and diplomatic approach. His emphatic rejection of US mediation claims reinforces India's commitment to strategic autonomy while highlighting the effectiveness of Indian military action in compelling Pakistani restraint. The minister's pointed comments about China-Pakistan defence cooperation reflect growing Indian awareness of Beijing's role in regional security dynamics without foreclosing diplomatic options.

Jaishankar's broader observations about Western narratives, European relations, and Pakistani state support for terrorism demonstrate India's increasingly confident voice in international affairs. His criticism of nuclear escalation narratives and European double standards suggests that India will continue challenging Western frameworks that it perceives as biased or counterproductive. The minister's optimism about India-Europe economic cooperation, combined with his firm stance on security issues, indicates India's multi-dimensional approach to international engagement that prioritises national interests while building strategic partnerships where mutually beneficial.

Based On TOI Report