India Rebuts Trump’s Claim on Trade Role in India-Pakistan Ceasefire
India has firmly dismissed claims by US President Donald Trump that trade promises were instrumental in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following recent hostilities. The rebuttal comes in the wake of Trump’s assertion that his administration leveraged the prospect of enhanced trade relations to de-escalate tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, a claim Indian officials have categorically denied.
According to sources in India’s Ministry of External Affairs, no discussions regarding trade took place during key diplomatic exchanges between Indian and US leaders after the launch of Operation Sindoor on May 7. The operation, a retaliatory strike targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-administered territory, was initiated in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives, mostly tourists. The Indian government has emphasized that the ceasefire, announced on May 10, was a bilateral decision reached through direct military channels, not influenced by US trade incentives.
On May 9, US Vice President JD Vance held a conversation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during which Vance reportedly shared US intelligence indicating a high probability of further escalation if the conflict persisted. Sources close to the discussions revealed that Modi responded firmly, stating that any further provocations from Pakistan would be met with a “harder, deeper, and bigger” response from India. Trade, however, was not mentioned during this exchange, Indian officials confirmed.
Similarly, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged with Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on May 8 and 10, and with National Security Adviser Ajit Doval on May 10. These conversations focused on de-escalation and the need for Pakistan to curb terrorist activities, with Rubio noting Pakistan’s willingness to adopt a mutual “no-fire” stance. Indian sources stressed that trade was conspicuously absent from these talks, underscoring New Delhi’s position that the ceasefire was driven by strategic and security considerations, not economic inducements.
|Also Read : India rebuts Trump’s claim of trade as a tool used to help in reaching understanding |
During a White House press briefing on May 11, President Trump claimed credit for averting what he described as a potential “nuclear war” between India and Pakistan. “On Saturday, my administration helped broker a full and immediate ceasefire, I think a permanent one, between India and Pakistan, ending a dangerous conflict of two nations with lots of nuclear weapons,” Trump stated. He further asserted that promises of “a lot of trade” with both countries played a pivotal role in securing the agreement, a narrative that has been met with skepticism in New Delhi.
Indian officials have pointed out that the ceasefire was formalized through a direct call between Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) and his Indian counterpart, Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, on May 10. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, in a televised statement, emphasized that the decision was a “bilateral” one, with no mention of US mediation or trade-related discussions. This stance aligns with India’s long-standing policy of rejecting third-party mediation in its disputes with Pakistan, particularly on issues like Kashmir and terrorism.
The Indian government’s swift rebuttal of Trump’s claims echoes a similar episode in July 2019, when Trump suggested that Prime Minister Modi had requested US mediation on the Kashmir issue. India promptly denied the claim, and Trump later clarified that the US would mediate only if both nations agreed. The current situation has reignited domestic debates, with opposition leaders, including Congress’s Rahul Gandhi, calling for a special parliamentary session to discuss Operation Sindoor, the Pahalgam attack, and the ceasefire.
Prime Minister Modi, in his first public address since the operation began, described Operation Sindoor as a “new normal” in India’s counter-terrorism strategy. Speaking on May 12, he declared, “India will strike wherever terror bases are located, and shall do so decisively if our country is attacked.” Modi also clarified that the operation has been “paused” based on Pakistan’s assurances to dismantle terror infrastructure, but warned that India remains vigilant and ready to retaliate if provoked.
The ceasefire, which has held since May 10, has brought a temporary halt to the most intense fighting between India and Pakistan since the 1971 war, according to some analysts. However, India’s suspension of a key water-sharing treaty with Pakistan remains in place, and Modi has ruled out negotiations on this issue, focusing instead on Kashmir and terrorism. The Indian Armed Forces reported eliminating over 100 terrorists, including key figures involved in the 1999 IC-814 hijacking and the 2019 Pulwama attack, during the initial strikes of Operation Sindoor.
As global attention remains fixed on the region, India’s rejection of Trump’s trade narrative underscores its commitment to maintaining strategic autonomy in its foreign policy. The government’s insistence on bilateral engagement with Pakistan, coupled with its robust counter-terrorism posture, signals a continued hardline approach to cross-border threats. Meanwhile, the US administration’s role, while acknowledged in facilitating dialogue, appears to have been overstated in Trump’s account, highlighting the complexities of diplomatic signaling in a volatile geopolitical landscape.
(Source : Newsonair and other open media platforms)
