It was a short and tense military standoff between India and Pakistan, but once the ceasefire was agreed upon by the two nations, a certain Donald J Trump — who refuses supporting credits in any narrative, military, diplomatic or otherwise — emerged as the wrecker-in-chief. The American President announced the cessation in hostilities before anyone else, bragged about US brokering the deal, made an unwarranted offer to work with both countries to find a solution to the Kashmir problem after a “thousand years”, and, last heard, was talking about stopping nuclear conflict just in time.
In an alternate universe, Captain America would have been proud of Trump.
However, in this real world, Trump’s flurry of pronouncements — and his complete disregard for carefully established diplomatic protocol and propriety – have elicited a mix of horror, consternation and alarm in New Delhi. Finally, on Monday evening, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pushed back in a nationally televised address, asserting that any dialogue with Pakistan, “will be on terror and PoK only… Terror and trade cannot go hand in hand; water and blood cannot flow together.”
On May 10, Trump took to social media with a dramatic announcement: the United States had facilitated a “full and immediate ceasefire” between the two nuclear-armed neighbours following four days of escalating military tensions, which included drone strikes, missile exchanges, and the tragic deaths of over 60 people. Trump lauded the “historic and heroic” decision made by both countries and expressed eagerness to “work with you both to see if, after a thousand years, a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir”.
The celebratory tone of the announcement seemed jarringly disconnected from the reality on the ground — and from India’s longstanding position. Hours after Trump’s statement, the Indian government issued a clarification: the ceasefire was the outcome of direct talks between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan, not a result of foreign mediation. In fact, India made no mention of the United States’ involvement at all. The silence was intentional.
For New Delhi, Trump’s remarks represent more than just a diplomatic misstep. They amount to a serious oversimplification of one of the most complex and emotionally charged disputes in modern geopolitics. The Kashmir issue cannot be reduced to a misunderstanding between neighbours needing a foreign referee. It is a matter deeply rooted in the subcontinent’s post-colonial history, identity, and national sovereignty.
Trump’s offer, couched in vague optimism about peace, fails to recognise this reality. His suggestion to “solve Kashmir” as though it were a mere territorial dispute ignores the layers of history, trauma, and political stakes involved. More dangerously, it feeds into Pakistan’s long-standing efforts to internationalise the issue and present Kashmir as an unresolved global dispute rather than an internal matter between two sovereign states governed by the 1972 Simla Agreement, which explicitly states that all bilateral issues must be resolved through direct negotiations.
India’s refusal to engage with Trump’s mediation narrative is consistent with this principle. Even during past crises such as the Kargil War of 1999 or the 2008 Mumbai attacks India has fiercely guarded its position against external involvement. Any perception that India has ceded control of the narrative — or worse, accepted third-party mediation — could damage India’s international standing and revive a problematic “India-Pakistan hyphenation” that it has worked hard to dismantle. As the world’s fifth-largest economy and an emerging global power, India’s aspirations cannot be viewed through the same lens as a struggling Pakistani state perpetually seeking international intervention.
Trump’s offer also raised eyebrows among opposition leaders and foreign policy analysts within India. The Congress, along with other voices across the political spectrum, demanded a clear explanation from the government about the sequence of events and the role of the United States. Their concern is justified. Even the appearance of accepting external mediation on Kashmir could undermine decades of foreign policy consistency and embolden Islamabad’s propaganda machinery.
While Pakistan was quick to thank Trump and his administration for their “leadership,” India’s quiet rebuttal should not be mistaken for indecision. Rather, it reflects a deliberate diplomatic strategy: avoiding public escalation while refusing to validate attempts at internationalising the issue. In the delicate dance of foreign policy, silence can sometimes speak louder than rhetoric.
What Trump fails to grasp is that Kashmir is not just about lines on a map. It’s about a people, a history, and the ideological foundations of two nations that were born out of partition and pain. Attempting to “solve” Kashmir without acknowledging these dimensions is not only naïve but risks exacerbating tensions rather than resolving them. Kashmir is not a bargaining chip for global showmanship. And while New Delhi must remain open to diplomatic dialogue, it must also defend its red lines.