 "Trump offers to mediate on Kashmir: Does India need a middleman?")
United States President Donald Trump’s offer to mediate the Kashmir flashpoint between India and Pakistan has been met with a familiar and unequivocal response from New Delhi: no third-party involvement.
While the US and Pakistan welcomed the idea of mediation, India maintained its long-standing position that any talks, if held, must remain strictly bilateral and bound by the Simla Agreement.
The rejection by India highlights not just a long-standing diplomatic stance, but a deeper assertion of its sovereignty and history that governs its engagement with Pakistan.
With Trump’s social media posts hailing a ceasefire between India and Pakistan and offering to find a “solution” to the Kashmir conflict, the episode has once again given an opportunity for stakeholders to be reminded that Kashmir is a bilateral issue and there is no room for any third-party.
No mediation, only PoK to Be discussed
New Delhi’s response to Trump’s remarks was unambiguous. Government sources made it clear that there is no scope for third-party involvement and no desire to revisit old discussions beyond the issue of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK).
As government sources quoted in numerous reports said, “We have a very clear position on Kashmir, there is only one matter left - the return of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). There is nothing else to talk about. If they talk about handing over terrorists, we can talk. We don’t have any intention of any other topic. We don’t want anyone to mediate. We don’t need anyone to mediate.”
This position is deeply rooted in India’s consistent application of the Simla Agreement of 1972, which mandates that disputes between India and Pakistan should be resolved bilaterally.
Indian officials reiterated that communication with Pakistan is strictly limited to the military level.
India’s firm diplomatic stance came in response to Trump’s public comments and social media posts about his desire to mediate and his portrayal of the United States as a peace-broker in the Kashmir ceasefire.
However, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri countered those assertions, stating that it was in fact Pakistan’s DGMO who reached out to the Indian side requesting de-escalation, not the other way around.
How Trump put himself in the mediator role
On Sunday (May 11, 2025), US President Donald Trump praised India and Pakistan for what he described as a “historic and heroic decision” to cease hostilities after days of cross-border attacks and rising tensions.
Writing on his Truth Social platform, Trump stated: “I am very proud of the strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India and Pakistan for having the strength, wisdom, and fortitude to fully know and understand that it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many, and so much. Millions of good and innocent people could have died! Your legacy is greatly enhanced by your brave actions.”
( @realDonaldTrump - Truth Social Post )
— Fan Donald J. Trump 🇺🇸 TRUTH POSTS (@TruthTrumpPosts) May 11, 2025
( Donald J. Trump - May 10, 2025, 11:48 PM ET )
I am very proud of the strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India and Pakistan for having the strength, wisdom, and fortitude to fully know and understand that it was time to stop… pic.twitter.com/RKDtlex2Yz
He further added: “I am proud that the USA was able to help you arrive at this historic and heroic decision. While not even discussed, I am going to increase trade substantially with both of these great Nations. Additionally, I will work with you both to see if, after a ‘thousand years,’ a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir. God Bless the leadership of India and Pakistan on a job well done.”
US Vice President JD Vance also called Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss the situation. According to sources, Modi responded unequivocally, telling Vance that if Pakistan attacks, India will retaliate more strongly.
How Pakistan has welcomed the mediation offer
In contrast to India’s outright rejection, Pakistan welcomed Trump’s remarks with open arms. The Pakistani government issued a statement on Sunday acknowledging and appreciating the US President’s willingness to intervene.
“We also appreciate President Trump’s expressed willingness to support efforts aimed at the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute,” the statement read.
Describing the Kashmir issue as one with “serious implications for peace and security in South Asia and beyond,” Islamabad also reaffirmed its traditional view that any resolution must follow UN Security Council resolutions and ensure the “realisation of the fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people, including their inalienable right to self-determination.”
Pakistan has regularly sought the involvement of global powers and international forums in the matter, seeing it as an issue of “self-determination and human rights.” Islamabad continues to advocate for a plebiscite in Kashmir, as per the 1948 UN resolutions, and regularly appeals to Washington and other powers to take up the cause.
Former Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari reflected Islamabad’s view, stating, “Pakistan would not have agreed (to a ceasefire) without US guarantees of a broader dialogue.”
Moeed Yusuf, former National Security Advisor of Pakistan, echoed this sentiment, remarking that “every six months, one year, two years, three years, something like this happens and then you are back at the brink of war in a nuclear environment.”
What history tells us about the facts
Within India, Trump’s offer drew sharp reactions from political circles, particularly the opposition Congress Party. Congress MP Manish Tewari took to social media to challenge Trump’s understanding of the Kashmir dispute.
He posted: “Someone in the US establishment needs to seriously educate their President Donald Trump that Kashmir is not a biblical 1000-year-old conflict. It started on October 22, 1947 - 78 years ago, when Pakistan invaded the Independent State of Jammu & Kashmir, which subsequently was ceded to India in ‘FULL’ by Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26, 1947, that includes areas illegally occupied by Pakistan till now. How difficult is it to grasp this simple fact?”
Someone in the US establishment needs to seriously educate their President @POTUS @realDonaldTrump that Kashmir is not a biblical 1000 year old conflict.
— Manish Tewari (@ManishTewari) May 11, 2025
It started on 22 nd October 1947 - 78 years ago when Pakistan invaded the Independent State of Jammu & Kashmir that… pic.twitter.com/Ug4nmO338H
Congress MP Jairam Ramesh also questioned whether the Indian government had compromised its position by implicitly allowing the US to act as an intermediary. He raised concerns over recent comments by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referencing a “neutral forum” for talks.
“Have we abandoned the Shimla Agreement? Have we opened the door for third-party mediation?” he asked in a post on X.
Meanwhile, the historic roots of the conflict were revisited by Firstpost, which accessed a declassified 1993 CIA assessment. The report titled ‘India-Pakistan: Prospects for War in the 1990s’ pointed to Kashmir as the most likely trigger for war due to its strategic and emotional significance to both nations.
It stated: “Possession of Muslim-majority Kashmir is fundamental to the self-image of each nation, it has been a battlefield in all previous conflicts.”
The CIA report also noted that “Pakistan sees Kashmir as an issue of self-determination and human rights. It backs 40-year-old UN resolutions calling for a plebiscite that allows Kashmiris to choose between India and Pakistan. Islamabad will seek every opportunity to internationalise the dispute, including pleas to Washington to convene a Camp David-like process.”
India’s security presence in the region has long been significant, with “about 350,000 Indian troops fighting an insurgency that appears to have no end,” the report added. It observed that while these forces can prevent Kashmir’s succession or acquisition by Pakistan, they are “unlikely to defeat the insurgents.”
Why New Delhi refuses to allow foreign inteference
India’s refusal to allow foreign mediation is not just a matter of principle—it is also a statement of its strategic identity. As the world’s fifth-largest economy, India has increasingly taken leadership roles in addressing regional and global crises, from natural disasters to economic collapses.
Indian policymakers see unsolicited offers of intervention — especially in Kashmir — as undermining their geopolitical autonomy.
Analysts suggest that how India handles such offers while maintaining engagement with powerful nations like the United States will determine not only its position in regional conflicts but also its future as a diplomatic heavyweight.
At the heart of New Delhi’s message is the belief that territorial integrity is non-negotiable, and any dialogue — if it happens — will be on India’s terms.
While Pakistan welcomes global intervention and praises external actors for their “constructive roles,” India remains resolute that the return of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir is the only discussion worth having.
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
 "India & China likely to resume direct flights within weeks: Report")
 "Trump’s Munir outreach, India tariffs aren’t strategy — it’s about a Nobel: Ex-NSA John Bolton")
 "How investor confidence in India is at a record high")
 "9 Pakistani soldiers, including an officer, killed in Balochistan attack")
 "India & China likely to resume direct flights within weeks: Report")
 "Trump’s Munir outreach, India tariffs aren’t strategy — it’s about a Nobel: Ex-NSA John Bolton")
 "How investor confidence in India is at a record high")
 "9 Pakistani soldiers, including an officer, killed in Balochistan attack")
