US President Donald Trump has stirred fresh controversy in South Asia by offering to mediate the long-standing Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. His surprise announcement over the weekend that the two nuclear-armed neighbours had agreed to a “full and immediate ceasefire,” allegedly brokered by the US, has left New Delhi in an awkward diplomatic spot.
In a follow-up social media post, Trump added, “I will work with you both to see if, after a thousand years, a solution can be arrived at, concerning Kashmir.” The comment has touched a nerve in India, where third-party involvement in the Kashmir issue has long been a diplomatic red line.
The Kashmir conflict dates back to 1947, when British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan. Both countries claim the region in full but control it in parts. Multiple bilateral efforts over decades have failed to resolve the dispute, with India consistently rejecting outside mediation, asserting that Kashmir is its integral territory.
Tensions had escalated sharply in recent days following India’s air strikes on what it called terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, in response to a deadly attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir that left 26 dead. Pakistan denied involvement, but the situation quickly escalated into cross-border missile, drone, and air attacks.
Trump’s intervention came as fears mounted over the potential for full-blown war. While backchannel diplomacy may have helped cool tensions, his overt claim of brokering a ceasefire and willingness to mediate Kashmir talks contradicts India’s stated position. “Obviously, it would not be welcome by the Indian side. It goes against our stated position for many years,” said Shyam Saran, former Indian foreign secretary.
Islamabad, however, welcomed Trump’s remarks, calling it a “moral victory” for Pakistan. In a statement, Pakistan’s foreign ministry praised the US president for “supporting efforts aimed at resolving the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.”
India’s stance has hardened significantly since 2019, when it revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, sparking protests and a communication blackout in the region. The move further alienated Pakistan and deepened the diplomatic rift.
The Indian opposition Congress party demanded clarity from the Modi government. Spokesperson Jairam Ramesh questioned whether the government had quietly opened doors to third-party mediation, urging for an all-party briefing.
Adding to the confusion, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio tweeted that India and Pakistan had agreed to begin talks on a range of issues at a “neutral site.” The Indian government has neither confirmed nor denied this, maintaining its historical commitment to bilateral talks under the Simla Agreement of 1972, which emphasizes resolving issues peacefully through direct dialogue.
Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar remained firm in his statement, reiterating India’s uncompromising stance on terrorism and making no reference to Trump’s mediation proposal. His silence on the ceasefire announcement is being read as a diplomatic rebuff to the US.
Strategic analysts in Pakistan see Trump’s move as a chance to break the diplomatic deadlock. “Now a superpower is willing to stick its neck out. Pakistan will see this as a moral victory,” said Imtiaz Gul of the Centre for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad. Experts like Syed Muhammad Ali argue that the international community must step in when bilateral channels fail to function.
India, now a key player in global politics and a member of the Quad alliance alongside the US, Japan, and Australia, finds itself needing to balance domestic political expectations with international diplomatic imperatives. While Trump’s mediation offer may be unwelcome, rejecting it outright could risk trade and strategic ties with Washington—India’s largest trading partner.
With elections looming and national sentiment sensitive around Kashmir, the Modi government is unlikely to budge from its position. But the diplomatic tightrope walk has just become more precarious.
