Former U.S. President Donald Trump has again asserted that his intervention prevented war between India and Pakistan, reiterating claims he first made in May. Speaking in Scotland, Trump said global conflict “would have erupted” without his involvement, specifically citing his use of trade leverage to force both nuclear‑armed nations into a ceasefire agreement. “India would be fighting Pakistan… I said I’m not doing a trade deal if you guys are going to war,” Trump remarked, claiming credit for halting hostilities and averting a potential nuclear escalation.
Trump described a frantic back‑and‑forth exchange during the conflict, in which he alleged that “five planes were shot down” before he stepped in. He made clear that his demands for a ceasefire were tied to trade negotiations with both countries.
In response, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar delivered a categorical rebuttal in India’s Parliament. He clarified that there were no calls between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi from April 22 to June 17, the critical window during which the crisis unfolded. Jaishankar underlined that no linkage was made between trade and diplomacy at any stage of India’s dealings with the United States regarding the conflict.
India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh echoed this position, stating that India did not succumb to external pressure and ended the operation after achieving its military and political objectives—not because of any mediation.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has publicly praised Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio for playing a “pivotal” role in securing the ceasefire. However, India continues to maintain that the truce was brokered directly through established military channels. According to official accounts, the ceasefire came about when Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations initiated contact with his Indian counterpart on May 10—not through Washington’s influence.
The dispute has sparked domestic political firestorms. Opposition parties in India have demanded a clear stance from the government, while some critics have urged tougher diplomatic pushback against Trump’s repeated claims.
In summary, while Trump repeats ceasefire claim—asserting he used trade leverage to intervene—the Indian government firmly refutes any U.S. mediation, asserting that the ceasefire was the result of direct bilateral military dialogue, unlinked to trade and U.S. involvement.WABSTALK
