At a media briefing on May 13, India’s Ministry of External Affairs dismissed President Donald Trump’s claims of having “mediated” a “full and immediate ceasefire” between New Delhi and Islamabad. The deal was “bilaterally reached,” it said.
A day later, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar told reporters there was “absolutely no change” in New Delhi’s long-standing position that all dealings with Pakistan would be “strictly bilateral.”
Trump had announced the India-Pakistan ceasefire and the U.S. role in brokering it on May 10. Soon after, India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced at a special briefing that the Director General of Military Operations of Pakistan had initiated a call with his Indian counterpart and both sides agreed to “stop all firing and military action on land and in the air and sea.” He made no mention of the United States.
This, however, did not restrain Trump from repeatedly claiming thereafter that the U.S. had brokered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. During his ongoing Middle East tour, Trump said in Saudi Arabia that he “used trade to a large extent” to broker the ceasefire. However, in Qatar, he did tone down his claims, saying he “helped settle the problem,” but reiterated having used trade as leverage.
Back in India, public outrage and criticism, particularly from the opposition parties, prompted the Indian foreign ministry to end the Narendra Modi government’s silence on the question of U.S. mediation. It has clarified that while there were there were “conversations” between Indian and U.S. leaders on the “evolving military situation,” the issue of trade “did not come up in any of these discussions.”
Trump’s announcement of the ceasefire on social media, before the concerned parties – India and Pakistan – could make the announcement themselves, is characteristic of his penchant to project himself as a “peacemaker.”
However, even if one dismisses Trump’s remarks as an attempt at vanity, it is concerning that the U.S. State Department’s messaging was at odds with New Delhi’s official position.
In its May 10 press statement titled “Announcing a U.S.-Brokered Ceasefire between India and Pakistan,” the U.S. State Department recounted how Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio “engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani officials.” Later, Rubio announced on X that the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to “start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.”
In a televised address, Modi ruled out such a possibility when he reiterated New Delhi’s long-held position that talks and state-sponsored terrorism cannot go hand in hand.
While New Delhi’s strong rebuttal to U.S. claims may have quietened domestic outrage somewhat, at least temporarily, the lingering question remains – will it derail India’s flourishing ties with the United States?
Will the current uncomfortable situation unravel ongoing trade talks?
Just days before the outbreak of the India-Pakistan hostilities, White House officials claimed India was among the few countries that were close to a trade deal with Washington. In fact, Vance was in New Delhi last month to discuss the trade deal with Modi, and both leaders welcomed the “significant progress” in the first phase of the bilateral trade deal.
During a recent meeting with business leaders in Doha, Trump claimed India had offered a deal with “basically no tariffs” on U.S. goods. India’s Jaishankar quickly dismissed the claim, stating that discussions were still ongoing and emphasizing that drawing any conclusions – especially regarding tariff concessions – would be “premature.”
The current tensions do not seem to have affected Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal’s scheduled four-day trip to Washington beginning on May 17, where he is expected to engage with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. New Delhi is keen to secure a trade deal during the reciprocal tariff pause period, which ends on June 9, to avoid a hefty additional 26 percent U.S. tariff on Indian imports. The deal will be crucial for New Delhi to maintain its status as the fastest-growing major economy, with 6.5 percent GDP growth in FY 2024-25.
Much to New Delhi’s discomfort, by linking the push for the truce with Pakistan with the trade issue, Trump has effectively enmeshed trade negotiations with diplomacy around Kashmir.
Despite the trade incentive, Modi will be hard pressed to revive his strongman image, which has taken a hit due to Trump’s remarks. A trade deal where India is seen to give in too much to U.S tariff demands – so far, Washington has been able to successfully portray India’s trade practices as the cause of the U.S. trade deficit – will only cause more damage, significantly limiting New Delhi’s negotiating space.
Many in Delhi were quick to note that the Quad’s silence following the outbreak of the India-Pakistan hostilities, and raised questions about whether the group’s members can be relied upon during times of crisis. In New Delhi, anti-U.S. sentiments are at an all-time high, with the public criticizing Modi’s ceasefire as bending to American pressure.
Kashmir is a particularly emotive issue for India, and with elections looming in Bihar, Modi will be hard pressed to placate his domestic base.
New Delhi will be closely watching Washington’s moves over the next few weeks. Trump’s attempt to re-hyphenate New Delhi and Islamabad – a reversal of the de-hyphenation policy started by Bush –is undoubtedly a serious setback to the India-U.S. partnership.
So, will this India-Pakistan crisis fundamentally change the relations between the world’s two largest democracies, India and the United States? Maybe not.
In the past, New Delhi has been able to push aside Washington’s public criticism of its state of governance to deepen security and political ties.
The U.S. cannot afford to isolate its most important partner in countering China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific region. Dialogue and diplomacy can arrest the downturn in ties.
Washington’s support for New Delhi’s efforts to designate The Resistance Front, an affiliate of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba – which initially claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam terror attack – as a U.N.-listed terror outfit, would be a good start.