The corporate media is gloating over a claim from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi disputing President Donald Trump’s assertion that he helped broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan earlier this year. But Modi’s own domestic political situation and Trump’s record as an expert dealmaker suggest that Trump’s account is the more reliable one.
The hostilities began in April after a devastating terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir killed 26 civilians—mostly Indian tourists. The Resistance Front, believed to be affiliated with the Pakistani-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, was quickly blamed for the bombing. Graphic images of bloodied civilians spread rapidly on social media, igniting outrage across India.
Prime Minister Modi, known for his hawkish stance on terrorism, was under enormous pressure to respond. Hyper-nationalist factions within India—many of whom Modi had previously sidelined—demanded swift military action. Initially, New Delhi attempted to diplomatically isolate Islamabad, but that strategy quickly proved inadequate in quelling public fury. Calls for revenge grew louder.
On May 7, India launched coordinated airstrikes on nine targets: four inside Pakistan and five in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The strikes targeted what India said were terrorist training camps and launchpads used by Lashkar-e-Taiba. India’s Defense Ministry described the operation as “focused, measured, and non-escalatory,” a claim shared widely on social media in an attempt to calm tensions.
But calm was in short supply. Pakistan responded by launching retaliatory strikes on Indian military targets, claiming it had destroyed 26 installations. With the two nuclear-armed rivals trading blows, fears of full-scale war loomed large.
While U.S. officials publicly expressed sympathy for India, Trump took a more hands-on approach behind the scenes. Vice President J.D. Vance, during a trip to New Delhi, encouraged Pakistan’s cooperation in the investigation into the initial attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump’s call for restraint, while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard denounced the attack as “heinous.” Yet it was Trump who, according to several diplomats, played the pivotal role in urging both sides to step back from the brink.
Trump described India’s strikes as premature and based on “unverified intelligence,” calling the situation “a shame” and urging a quick resolution. Trump’s pointed criticism signaled a sharp divergence from Washington’s usual deference to India. It also sent a clear message to both sides: escalation would result in a lose-lose situation.
Behind the scenes, U.S. diplomats began intense shuttle diplomacy between New Delhi and Islamabad. Secretary Rubio announced that both nations had agreed to meet at a neutral site for direct talks. Within three days, a ceasefire was reached. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry confirmed its commitment to halting hostilities, and both sides backed off further military action.
At the time, it was widely recognized that Trump’s White House had brokered the peace. “By agreeing to abort under U.S. pressure, India is shifting international focus from Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism to the Kashmir dispute,” said Brahma Chellaney, a leading Indian defense analyst. Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert in Washington, agreed that the ceasefire “came when tensions were at their peak.”
Several international observers also confirmed Trump’s influence in interviews with me. A retired German diplomat who helped negotiate the Dayton Accords in the 1990s said, “Everyone said the ceasefire was fragile, but it’s actually one of the most solid we’ve seen in decades.” He emphasized that Trump’s post-ceasefire push for trade talks between India and Pakistan was essential to stabilizing the situation.
A Japanese diplomat with experience in the region echoed that sentiment. “President Trump’s groundwork—his mix of diplomacy and pressure—was essential,” he said.
The Indian government, however, has now sought to rewrite the story. Modi claimed this week that Trump had nothing to do with the ceasefire, and the corporate press—eager to diminish Trump’s accomplishments—has uncritically echoed that line.
But Modi’s denial is hardly impartial. His government is facing a tough election later this year, especially in the crucial Hindi Belt region, which includes Bihar. After the terror attack, Modi delivered his fiery response speech in Bihar, a symbolic nod to the heart of his political base. As one retired diplomat noted, “Think about what the Bible Belt means for American Republicans. The Hindi Belt matters just as much for Modi’s party.”
Portraying the peace as an entirely Indian achievement plays well with nationalists at home. But it strains credulity to suggest that the United States, led by one of the most assertive dealmakers in recent memory, had no role in defusing a conflict between two nuclear powers.
Modi had even more reason to downplay Trump’s involvement following the announcement that Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, would visit the White House, news which sparked outrage among Modi’s base.
From an Indian political perspective, Modi’s sudden desire to erase Trump’s role in brokering peace is hardly surprising. In an election year, political messaging gets exaggerated, and foreign policy becomes domestic theater.
Equally unsurprising is how quickly the media adopted Modi’s revisionist version of events simply because it allowed them to downplay Trump’s success. This episode is yet another example of the press embracing any narrative—no matter how flimsy—that discredits Donald Trump. Instead of celebrating a successful effort to prevent war and promote peace, they’re focused on poking holes in the story because it doesn’t fit their preferred script.
But the facts speak for themselves. Trump’s involvement in de-escalating the India-Pakistan conflict was real, timely, and effective. His ability to cool tensions, shift the conversation toward trade, and establish a ceasefire in a matter of days is a testament to his leadership. That’s what real diplomacy looks like. And no amount of spin from Modi—or the media—can change that.
Ben Solis is the pen name of an international affairs journalist, historian, and researcher.
Read full article here