India dismisses Beijing’s claims of brokering peace between India and Pakistan during the May conflict this year, stressing that no third-party country played any role in the ceasefire process. Government sources in New Delhi clarified that the truce was initiated at Pakistan’s request through direct military channels after Operation Sindoor, and India never sought or accepted external mediation.The statement came after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi — following US President Donald Trump’s earlier comments — suggested that China had helped mediate the India-Pakistan ceasefire. Indian officials reiterated that the communication for a ceasefire was routed bilaterally between the Director General of Military Operations on the Pakistani side and India’s DGMO, with the request originating in Islamabad.
At a year-end foreign policy symposium in Beijing, Wang Yi spoke about multiple global conflicts, claiming China’s diplomatic role in “addressing symptoms and root causes” in several hotspot regions. In his remarks, he listed areas where China said it had attempted to intervene diplomatically, including northern Myanmar, the Iranian nuclear file, the Palestinian-Israeli war, and the India-Pakistan military tensions. He also included Cambodia-Thailand and Cambodia-Thailand civic conflicts in the same address, projecting Beijing’s broader peacekeeping narrative for 2025.
However, India’s position on mediation in the subcontinent has remained unchanged for decades. Officials again emphasised that India’s security and border decisions are sovereign matters, handled through institutional mechanisms, diplomatic back-channels, or formal bilateral agreements — never through international arbitration unless mutually agreed, which was not the case this year.
India’s pushback also reflects a wider geopolitical sensitivity around credit-claiming in conflict resolution, particularly when rival powers publicly attach themselves to negotiations that took place without them. The clarification by Indian sources was aimed at closing the narrative loop domestically and internationally, reinforcing that the ceasefire was a bilateral decision triggered by battlefield pressure and formal DGMO communication, not by external diplomatic brokerage.
As competing claims continue to circulate globally, Indian officials maintain that their stance is not directed at one country alone, but at the principle itself — peace may be welcomed, but not the narrative of foreign ownership over decisions taken between two sovereign militaries.
