Congress MP Jairam Ramesh has reignited debate over external involvement in last year’s India–Pakistan military standoff by claiming explicit United States intervention in halting Operation Sindoor. In remarks made on Tuesday, he referred to events of May 2025, asserting that the de‑escalation came after direct contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 10 May 2025. According to Ramesh, this led to what he terms the “first announcement” of the halt of Operation Sindoor by Rubio at 17:37 hours that day.

Ramesh aired his claims in a post on X, suggesting that “much obviously happened on May 10, 2025”, implying back‑channel or high‑level diplomatic activity that has not yet been fully disclosed in the public domain.

His comments appear designed to question the official Indian narrative that the ceasefire and subsequent calm along the Line of Control were achieved independently, without third‑party mediation. They also revive scrutiny of how exactly the crisis was managed at its peak.

Operation Sindoor itself was launched by India on 7 May 2025 as a calibrated punitive response to the 22 April Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. The operation reportedly comprised a series of precision strikes on nine terrorist camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan‑occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). These strikes marked a significant kinetic escalation, continuing the pattern of cross‑border counter‑terror operations that India has justified as pre‑emptive or retaliatory action against Pakistan‑based militant infrastructure.

Pakistan’s reaction to Operation Sindoor came swiftly in the form of intensified border shelling and escalated firing along the Line of Control and the international border sectors. In turn, India is reported to have targeted 11 Pakistani military and air force bases, inflicting substantial damage on Islamabad’s military assets and installations. This exchange raised fears of a wider conventional confrontation, with international observers closely tracking the risk of further escalation between the two nuclear‑armed neighbours.

Against this backdrop, the United States sought to project itself as a central crisis manager. Then US President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that his administration had played a key role in halting the conflict in May 2025. He linked this asserted influence partly to the leverage Washington holds through trade and tariff policies, arguing that American economic instruments and diplomatic pressure were critical in nudging both sides towards restraint and eventual de‑escalation.

New Delhi has consistently rejected these characterisations. The Indian government’s stated position is that the ceasefire and de‑escalation were achieved through established bilateral military channels, specifically via communication between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan. India has maintained that there was no formal third‑party mediation, in line with its long‑standing policy that all issues with Pakistan, including those relating to Jammu and Kashmir, must be addressed bilaterally under the framework of the Simla Agreement and subsequent understandings.

Jairam Ramesh has previously criticised the BJP‑led government for not forcefully countering Washington’s public claims of having “stopped” the conflict. His latest assertion about Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s role and the timing of the 10 May 2025 announcement effectively challenges the government to clarify the extent and nature of US involvement. It raises questions over whether American diplomatic outreach merely coincided with an already ongoing bilateral process, or whether it had a determinative impact on the decision to halt operations.

Politically, Ramesh’s intervention adds a fresh layer to domestic debate over strategic autonomy and transparency in crisis management. For the opposition, any suggestion of heavy US involvement can be used to argue that the government compromised India’s stated red lines on third‑party mediation. For the government, acknowledging too prominent an American role could be seen as undermining the narrative of sovereign decision‑making and robust, self‑directed military diplomacy.

Strategically, the episode illustrates the recurring pattern in India–Pakistan crises: limited but sharp military action, rapid escalation risks, followed by intense but often opaque diplomatic activity involving both bilateral and international actors.

While India continues to insist on bilateralism and downplays external mediation, major powers such as the United States routinely attempt to demonstrate their relevance by publicly claiming a stabilising role. The divergence between these narratives, now highlighted by Ramesh’s remarks, is likely to fuel further calls for official documentation and parliamentary scrutiny of the 2025 crisis management process.

Based On ANI Report