India-Pakistan Ceasefire: Congress Slams PM Modi Over Trump’s Mediation Claims
By: Javid Amin | 15 June 2025
A Ceasefire and a Storm of Silence
On paper, the May 10 ceasefire between India and Pakistan brought an end to weeks of heightened tension and cross-border hostilities triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. But in the corridors of Indian domestic politics, the truce has ignited a different kind of fire—one that questions the government’s silence, its foreign policy credibility, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s refusal to counter U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that he personally brokered peace.
With 13 public assertions across three countries in just 34 days, Trump’s claims that he “stopped a war between India and Pakistan using trade” have become a diplomatic sore point—amplified by a conspicuous lack of rebuttal from the Modi government. Now, the Congress party is turning up the heat, framing the silence as not just political evasion but a serious compromise of national pride and foreign policy independence.
The Conflict: From Pahalgam to the Brink of War
April 22: Terror in Pahalgam
The genesis of the crisis lies in the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, which claimed 12 lives, including several security personnel and civilians. India promptly blamed Pakistan-based terror groups with support from across the border, triggering a series of military escalations.
May 7–10: Cross-Border Hostilities Escalate
In early May, India launched precision strikes on terror launch pads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Pakistan responded with retaliatory attempts on May 8, 9, and 10, targeting Indian military installations in Rajouri, Poonch, and Kupwara.
The situation appeared to be spiraling toward full-scale conflict—until, on May 10, an understanding was reportedly reached between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both nations to halt active hostilities.
Trump’s Claim: “I Stopped a War Using Trade”
Since then, Donald Trump has taken center stage in a different theatre—claiming in speeches, interviews, and rallies that he personally brokered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan:
“We were on the brink of a war. I stopped it. I used trade—you know, the big stuff they want. I told both of them—India, Pakistan—you either stop or you pay the price.”
He has made this claim 13 times, most recently at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., even as India mourned the Ahmedabad aircraft tragedy.
Worse, the claims were partially corroborated by a Kremlin aide, who revealed that Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed India-Pakistan tensions in a June 4 call—and that Trump’s mediation was instrumental in easing the situation.
Congress Response: “Modi’s Silence is Diplomatically Damaging”
Congress has launched a full-blown political attack, with party spokesperson Jairam Ramesh spearheading the critique. His central points:
“13 Claims, 0 Rebuttals”
“In 34 days, Trump claimed credit 13 times. And not once has Prime Minister Modi refuted or clarified the Indian position.”
Ramesh argues that the silence could signal tacit acceptance of Trump’s version—or worse, reflect a foreign policy driven by domestic image management rather than national interest.
Diplomatic Setbacks
Congress points to three recent developments that underscore what they call a foreign policy failure:
-
U.S. General Michael Kurilla calling Pakistan a “phenomenal partner” in counterterrorism.
-
Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir visiting Washington for U.S. Army Day celebrations.
-
Trump’s repeated statements that place India and Pakistan on an equal footing, undermining India’s diplomatic stance.
Ramesh also posted a detailed chronology of Trump’s 13 statements, complete with media links and transcripts, asking:
“@narendramodi, when will you speak up?”
India’s Official Line: DGMO Talks, No Foreign Mediation
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) maintains that the May 10 ceasefire was the result of direct military-to-military dialogue between India and Pakistan’s DGMOs.
Key MEA Points:
-
No third-party mediation occurred.
-
Ceasefire decision was bilateral, based on de-escalation priorities.
-
India rejects “hyphenation” of India-Pakistan relations by foreign powers.
However, the absence of an official rebuttal to Trump’s narrative, especially in diplomatic forums or public addresses by the Prime Minister, continues to raise eyebrows.
Deeper Implications: Between Silence and Sovereignty
Strategic Ambiguity or Tactical Silence?
Some analysts argue Modi’s silence is deliberate diplomatic prudence, avoiding giving Trump’s claims further oxygen.
But others warn that such silence:
-
Erodes India’s position as a sovereign actor
-
Risks normalizing third-party intervention narratives
-
May set a precedent where foreign leaders can dictate or distort India’s foreign policy events without consequence
A Pattern of Deference?
Critics within India and abroad have noted a pattern in India’s foreign policy under Modi:
-
Avoiding direct criticism of powerful global figures (e.g., Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin)
-
Leveraging international praise for domestic electoral gain
-
Compartmentalizing strategic and ideological differences with countries like the U.S., Israel, and Russia
This may explain the silence—but it does not excuse or clarify it, as Congress argues.
Geopolitical Fallout: India’s Image on the World Stage
The Risk of Hyphenation
One of India’s long-standing diplomatic objectives has been to de-hyphenate itself from Pakistan in global strategic discourse. Trump’s statements, and India’s lack of refutation, risk undoing years of effort.
The China Factor
With China’s growing influence in the region, the U.S. remains a critical counterbalance. But Trump’s alignment with Pakistan, even rhetorically, complicates India’s Quad strategy and Indo-Pacific objectives.
Political Fallout: Domestic Optics vs. Diplomatic Duty
For Congress, this issue has become a litmus test for Modi’s leadership—juxtaposing:
-
Strongman rhetoric at home
-
Mutism on international platforms
Ramesh’s demand for a special session of Parliament and an all-party meeting is a call to restore parliamentary oversight on foreign affairs—something Congress claims is missing in Modi’s unilateral style.
“This isn’t just about Trump. It’s about whether India still speaks for itself on the global stage,” said Ramesh.
Bottom-Line: A Crisis of Credibility or Calculated Silence?
Whether Prime Minister Modi’s silence is strategic patience or political evasion, the longer it lasts, the more it feeds a dangerous narrative—one where India’s sovereignty, diplomacy, and defense are defined by foreign leaders and not its own elected representatives.
In an era of rapid information cycles and aggressive foreign posturing, credibility cannot be optional. Silence, when misinterpreted as submission, can cost more than conflict.
