Direct Military Dialogue, Not US Mediation
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar rejected the notion of American intervention during the course of the Pakistan – India war when he noted that the US was pivotal to the 10th of May ceasefire. He maintained that the quite literally beyond-the-borders clawing conflict was settled at the level of the military top echelons on both sides, without resorting to third-party mediation. In regard to the hostilities, it’s pretty much clear that for resolving conflict, Pakistan and India needed a break from outside pressure. He further cited, “I thank the Indian military because it was the Indian military action that made Pakistan say, ‘We are ready to stop.’” This marks and highlights the aggressive stance taken by India on south borderline diplomacy.
US Role: Concern, Not Direct Influence
When calls were made to intervene, the region became open for them to peep and observe. Their issued comments did not go beyond concern. No attempt to intervene or make direct communication was undermined, suggests Jaishankar. What is clear is that phone calls were made to concerned parties from the admin: “Yu, Rubio, and JD the Vile Vice” to make statements. Everyone connected in Julius Smith and India made it clear that plans were executed through communication on the military axis. This stance reflects New Delhi’s insistence on bilateralism in its dealings with Islamabad, resisting third-party mediation.
China’s Deepening Military Ties with Pakistan
While noting the ongoing conflict, Jaishankar underscored the close military ties between Beijing and Islamabad, remarking, “You can draw your own conclusions from that,” in reference to Pakistan using Chinese-manufactured weapons during the conflict. It demonstrates India’s discomfort with China’s increasing role as Pakistan’s primary supplier of arms and military assistance. It is reported that some Chinese advisers might have assisted Pakistan in airborne satellite and aerial defense realignment during the fighting. However, Beijing publicly maintains a neutral stance.
No Imminent Nuclear Escalation
While discussing the possibility of a nuclear standoff, he was in disbelief about that scenario occurring. “Very, very far away. I’m frankly astonished by your question,” said Jaishankar. He reasoned that Indian forces did exercise restraint in advancing military operations by systematically dismantling Pakistan’s air defense command and terror infrastructure control systems, but did so in a non-escalatory manner. This answer seeks to pacify domestic and global audiences expecting a more aggressive posture from New Delhi.
International Relations and Diplomacy
The war received unprecedented attention from multiple nations, including the US, Russia, and China, with all of them calling for restraint and dialogue. On the other hand, India insisted that the ceasefire was a product of contact at the military level and no external mediation was involved. The DGMO’s communication lines were active, and diplomacy was happening at multiple levels, albeit without formal mediation from a third party.
Information India: Message Sent Congruent with Autonomy Policy Deterrence Policy
Jaishankar’s comments support India’s policy of grappling with security challenges on its own and deriving repercussions towards both Pakistan and terrorist-sponsored states. It was mentioned by him that terrorist groups are infamously free to operate from Pakistani territory, and India’s military response is a reaction to the offensive actions on Indian territory. This clearly indicates that the government decision is based on preemptive strike policy or crisis control policy—no waiting for others to intervene to decide and safeguard the interests.
