Congress MP and former diplomat Shashi Tharoor shared his thoughts on Sunday about US President Donald Trump’s claim of facilitating the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Tharoor, who is also an MP from Thiruvananthapuram, expressed his disagreement with Trump’s portrayal of the situation as one where the United States had "mediated" between the two countries. Instead, Tharoor suggested that what had transpired was not "mediation" but rather the US attempting to play a "constructive role" in a delicate and highly sensitive issue.
On Saturday evening, Trump made a bold statement on his social media platform, Truth Social, claiming credit for the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. He declared that the US had mediated the conflict and that both countries had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. True to his words, within an hour of the announcement, both India and Pakistan officially confirmed the ceasefire.
Shashi Tharoor, while addressing the matter in an interview with NDTV, called Trump’s approach a “very unfortunate way of proceeding” and pointed out that he had never seen international diplomacy unfold in such a manner. This was in the backdrop of the letter that Trump had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in which he highlighted the ceasefire agreement. Tharoor emphasized that, in his experience, such matters are never handled in such an open and informal way, especially by a leader of a country as influential as the US.
The Congress MP also drew attention to the ongoing diplomatic exchanges between India and Pakistan over the past few days, pointing out that both countries had been in touch with foreign leaders to discuss the escalating tensions. Tharoor, with his rich background in international diplomacy, was quick to clarify that while Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had engaged in conversations with key leaders, including US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Pakistani officials, this should not be construed as India requesting any form of mediation.
"Let me be blunt about it," Tharoor remarked, "Jaishankar spoke to Secretary Blinken, and then Blinken spoke with Pakistan’s foreign minister. These kinds of conversations were happening over the past few days of the conflict. But that doesn’t mean India was asking for mediation." This is a key point that Tharoor emphasized repeatedly throughout his discussion, highlighting the difference between communication between countries and actual mediation.
What Tharoor highlighted next was an important distinction that the public might miss. While the US did play a role in encouraging dialogue, he firmly stated that it was not mediation. Instead, he saw it as the US, along with other countries, playing a “constructive role” in helping to de-escalate the situation. Tharoor was quick to point out that India has been in talks with several other nations, including the UAE, UK, and France, to discuss the escalating conflict. These efforts, according to him, were more about providing a platform for countries to communicate their positions to each other, rather than any direct involvement in resolving the conflict.
This, Tharoor stressed, was not the same as Trump’s claim of mediation. "Mediation is a completely different thing," Tharoor clarified, asserting that India would never accept foreign mediation in a conflict that it felt fully capable of handling. He continued by stating that the idea of mediation in India-Pakistan relations is not something that India would ever accept, especially when it comes to issues that are deeply integral to the country’s sovereignty, like the Kashmir dispute. The fundamental truth, as Tharoor pointed out, was that the two countries were capable of resolving their issues on their own, and foreign intervention was neither necessary nor welcome.
Trump’s post on Truth Social had also stated that after a "long night of talks mediated by the United States," both India and Pakistan had agreed to the ceasefire. He congratulated both countries for using "common sense and great intelligence" to arrive at this decision. In his words, the ceasefire was a result of the "strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership" of both India and Pakistan. Trump's comments about being "proud" that the US had helped bring about this "historic and heroic decision" raised eyebrows in many diplomatic circles. His attempt to position himself as the key player in this diplomatic achievement seemed to contradict the reality of India’s long-standing stance on handling the Kashmir issue.
Another significant point Trump made was his offer to help both countries find a resolution to the Kashmir issue. His public offer of assistance sparked interest, especially considering India’s firm position on Kashmir. New Delhi has consistently maintained that Kashmir is an integral part of India and has opposed any form of third-party mediation on the matter.
The ceasefire itself came after several days of intense cross-border exchanges between the two countries, which included not only drone and missile attacks but also significant military operations. Indian forces had executed Operation Sindoor, a retaliatory strike targeting terror groups within Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) in response to the deadly Pahalgam terror attack. The Indian airstrikes that followed, including bombings of Pakistani airfields, had escalated the situation significantly. Pakistan’s military had been on the offensive, leading to the heavy casualties and intense military responses. This volatile situation eventually led to the ceasefire announcement.
What followed was a complex web of diplomatic exchanges, military maneuvers, and negotiations that culminated in the sudden declaration of a ceasefire. Both India and Pakistan seemed to be ready for a pause, albeit with differing reasons for doing so. India's focus remained on securing its interests, especially in the wake of the terror attack, while Pakistan seemed to be trying to de-escalate tensions after incurring heavy costs in the military confrontation.
In conclusion, Tharoor’s remarks about the situation highlighted a fundamental misunderstanding of Trump’s claims, suggesting that the US had indeed played a role but not in the way that was being suggested. India, he emphasized, had not sought mediation, and it was unlikely to do so in the future. Instead, both India and Pakistan have the diplomatic and military tools to handle their differences. The idea of third-party mediation, particularly from a country like the US, remains a sensitive issue that has been resisted by India for decades. What the situation truly highlighted was the complexity of international diplomacy, where countries like the US may try to play a role in bringing parties together, but the real power to resolve the conflict rests with the two directly involved nations.
Login