US President Donald Trump has once again publicly claimed credit for brokering the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan, asserting that he leveraged trade as a means to prevent further conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. At a recent event in the Oval Office, Trump stated, “We stopped India and Pakistan from fighting.

I believe that could have turned out into a nuclear disaster, and I want to thank the leaders of India and Pakistan, and I want to thank my people. Also, we talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons.

They're great leaders in those countries, and they understood and they agreed”. Trump emphasized that his administration used trade incentives and the threat of halting commerce as a tool to de-escalate tensions, a narrative he has repeated in multiple public appearances and interviews in recent weeks.

However, these claims have been met with strong rebuttals from the Indian government. India’s Ministry of External Affairs has clarified that while there were conversations between Indian and US leaders regarding the evolving military situation following the launch of Operation Sindoor on May 7—a response to the Pahalgam terror attack—the issue of trade or tariffs was not discussed in any of those interactions.

According to official statements, the cessation of hostilities was achieved on May 10 after direct contacts between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan, and not through any third-party mediation or trade-related pressure from the US. This position has been reiterated by India’s External Affairs Minister and spokesperson, who have underscored India’s policy of resolving bilateral issues with Pakistan through direct dialogue.

The recent escalation began after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. India responded with Operation Sindoor, targeting terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

Following several days of drone and missile strikes, the DGMOs of both countries agreed to halt all military actions across land, air, and sea. Trump’s repeated assertions about using trade as leverage to end the conflict have reignited debate over the extent of international influence in the region, with India historically opposing third-party involvement in its disputes.

While Trump and his administration have continued to frame the US as a key mediator in the de-escalation, India maintains that the resolution was reached bilaterally, without external intervention or any linkage to trade negotiations. This divergence in narratives highlights ongoing tensions over the role of global powers in South Asian conflicts and underscores the sensitivity with which India approaches issues of sovereignty and diplomatic engagement.

Based On ANI Report