India dismisses nuclear signalling concerns, rejects US role in ceasefire with Pakistan

KARACHI: India has rejected any US involvement in the recent ceasefire understanding with Pakistan, asserting that the agreement was a bilateral move made independently by New Delhi and Islamabad.

According to Indian media reports, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a parliamentary panel that “there was no US role in the ceasefire”, directly refuting claims that US President Donald Trump had played a mediating role in de-escalating tensions.

He said that Trump “did not take our permission to come to centre stage. He wanted to come to centre stage, so he came,” Misri was quoted as saying.The statement comes amid lingering narratives about international mediation in the latest ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan.

Misri also downplayed concerns about any nuclear signalling from Pakistan during the standoff, claiming that the situation remained within the realm of conventional military operations. He reportedly cited India’s response as a show of its capability, adding it had successfully targeted Pakistani airbases during the conflict.

The comments came after several Indian lawmakers objected to the intervention of a third party (the US) to resolve the Pakistan-India dispute. The US president has repeatedly taken credit of defusing tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

Misri, however, did not comment on the number of aircraft lost by India. On Monday, India’s Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi publicly questioned External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s silence on the matter, adding that the minister’s silence is “damning”.

In his post on X, Gandhi again implied that Pakistan may have had prior knowledge of the operation (criticism that Jaishankar received after his statement about sending ‘advance warning’ to Pakistan about the strikes). He said, “How many Indian aircraft did we lose because Pakistan knew? This wasn’t a lapse. It was a crime.”Misri defended Jaishankar’s handling of the situation in front of the parliamentary panel, adding that ministers should not “misread the minister’s words”.