Trumpeting claims: On the U.S. President’s claims, India and Pakistan  

For the fifth time in as many days the U.S. President has claimed credit for bringing India and Pakistan back from “nuclear conflict” by mediating the May 10 ceasefire agreement, a claim that is puzzling and problematic. The claim of mediation has been rebutted by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), unofficially and more formally several times, with officials giving a timeline of how the talks had been held “directly” between the Directors General of Military Operation (DGMO) on a hotline, after the Pakistani DGMO proposed a stop to hostilities three days after Operation Sindoor began, and India acceded to the request. The government has said that Pakistan’s request came after it received a jolt over India’s strikes on Pakistani bases. It has also said that like many countries, the U.S. was engaged with the situation, and officials including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval had kept them apprised of India’s position. Mr. Trump’s assertions, backed by his administration, have been a cause for obvious outrage in Delhi, as they violate India’s “long-stated” principle of not accepting third-party mediation on bilateral issues. His other comments, including an offer to mediate to resolve the Kashmir dispute and the equivalence he draws between India and Pakistan, also go against India’s previously well-respected policies against the internationalisation of an “internal issue” and the hyphenation with Pakistan. Moreover, the MEA spokesperson has categorically denied that any trade-related issues were discussed between Indian and U.S. interlocutors, even as Mr. Trump has repeated that he had prevailed on India and Pakistan to put aside their “nuclear missiles” by threatening to stop trade with them if they did not, and promising to enhance trade ties if they did. That Mr. Trump has not once referred to India’s core concerns on terrorism, appeared to swallow the Pakistani narrative on a “nuclear war”, and even suggested a “dinner” between Mr. Modi and Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, trivialises the serious nature of the rupture between Delhi and Islamabad.

New Delhi must also analyse what lies behind Mr. Trump’s obvious shift from the camaraderie on display with Mr. Modi just months ago. Are the comments explained as simply “Trump being Trump”, or is he sending a more considered message on U.S. policy for the region? The extent of the China-Pakistan political and military cooperation may also have caused some alarm in the U.S. India must make it clear that its battle against cross-border terrorism from Pakistan cannot be brushed aside by any country, especially if it is one of India’s closest partners, and co-founder of the Quad. The U.S. President’s statements have not just challenged India’s narrative or policy principles but also questioned New Delhi’s credibility, and some tough messaging will be required to clear the air convincingly on the issue.