WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — The Indian government rejected President Donald Trump’s recent claims that trade negotiations played a role in facilitating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Responding to Trump’s remarks made across multiple platforms, India clarified that no such trade-related discussions took place during high-level diplomatic conversations and dismissed the notion of third-party influence in its bilateral issues with Pakistan.
Speaking on May 13, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal categorically denied any connection between trade talks and the ceasefire. “The issue of trade didn’t come up in any of these discussions,” he said, referencing conversations between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Vice President JD Vance, as well as between Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Jaiswal reiterated India’s long-standing policy that matters related to Jammu and Kashmir are strictly bilateral and not open to third-party mediation or influence. “The core issue remains the vacating of Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.”
Despite India’s firm stance, Trump took to the spotlight during the US-Saudi Investment Forum and in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity to describe what he called a “historic cease-fire.” Trump claimed that trade deals were used as leverage in brokering peace between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. “Fellas, come on, let’s make a deal, let’s do some trading, let’s not trade nuclear missiles…” Trump said, portraying his diplomatic approach in his typical dramatic fashion.
In his conversation aboard Air Force One, he doubled down on his version of events, saying, “I think we convinced them to let’s have peace and let’s go and make trade deals… much better than nuclear weapons.”
However, Indian officials have expressed both surprise and frustration at Trump’s remarks. According to The New York Times, senior Indian officials feel “betrayed” by the former president’s attempt to take credit for a process that India insists was entirely internal and not influenced by external actors. The report suggests that Trump, eyeing a Nobel Peace Prize, has latched onto the India-Pakistan situation after failed attempts at peacemaking in Gaza and Ukraine.
More troubling to Indian officials was the perceived equivalence drawn between India and Pakistan in Trump’s statements. New Delhi has consistently pushed back against any narrative that treats the two nations’ positions on the Kashmir issue as equal.
India also took issue with the oversimplified portrayal of diplomacy painted by Trump, which they believe misrepresents the serious nature of military and geopolitical discussions. Jaiswal pointed out that communications between Indian and U.S. leaders during heightened military tension, particularly during and after Operation Sindoor, focused exclusively on evolving military conditions, not trade.
“India does not accept third-party mediation in matters involving Pakistan,” Jaiswal said, underscoring that the country’s diplomatic engagements are governed by policy, precedent, and sovereignty, not by personal diplomacy or transactional deals.
As the dust settles, India’s public rebuttal signals more than just a difference in perspective—it highlights the underlying tensions that arise when political narratives clash with diplomatic protocol. Trump’s characteristic bravado may resonate with some audiences. Still, in this case, it has drawn a firm line from New Delhi: India’s foreign policy cannot be reduced to soundbites or simplified to suit political ambitions.
