Trump claims stopping India-Pakistan conflict at UNGA
After four days of heavy cross-border drone and missile strikes, India and Pakistan reached an understanding on May 10, agreeing to end hostilities and ease escalating tensions between both nations.
At the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, US President Donald Trump once again claimed that he had personally stopped the conflict between India and Pakistan. Speaking from the iconic UN podium to world leaders on Tuesday, Trump repeated his earlier assertion that it was his intervention that prevented escalation in South Asia.
Two of them, 31 years—think of it—31 years. One was 36 years, one was 28 years.”
He went on to list a series of global conflicts where he claimed credit for bringing peace. This includes Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, the Congo and Rwanda, a vicious, violent war that was, Pakistan and India, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Armenia.
His statement drew immediate attention back home in India, especially because it came against the backdrop of Operation Sindoor, the military campaign launched by New Delhi earlier in May.
On May 7, India initiated Operation Sindoor, a decisive strike targeting terror infrastructure inside Pakistan and in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The operation was carried out in direct retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 innocent civilians lost their lives. The Pahalgam massacre had shaken the country and sparked widespread outrage, compelling the government to act firmly against those orchestrating and sheltering terror across the border.
The Indian military campaign was intense, involving drone and missile strikes on terror camps and launchpads. Over the next four days, Pakistan retaliated with its own strikes, leading to one of the fiercest exchanges between the two countries in recent years. The fighting raised alarm in the international community, which feared the possibility of a larger war between two nuclear-armed neighbors.
However, by May 10, India and Pakistan announced that they had reached an understanding to cease hostilities. The cessation of conflict was formally arranged after direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both nations. It was a channel that had been used in the past during tense standoffs, and once again, it proved to be the practical route for de-escalation.
For India, the message was clear: while the country was willing to hit back hard in the face of terrorism, it was also prepared to call a halt once its strategic objectives had been achieved. The decision to stop the operation was taken solely by India’s leadership in consultation with the armed forces, not under pressure from outside powers.
This was underlined in Parliament by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who categorically stated that no foreign leader or government had asked India to stop Operation Sindoor. His remarks came as a direct counter to Trump’s sweeping claims at the UN. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar also reiterated that there had been no third-party intervention in the decision-making process. He stressed that the ceasefire understanding was entirely bilateral, worked out through the established military-to-military communication channels between New Delhi and Islamabad.
For ordinary Indians, the narrative has a deeply human side. The attack in Pahalgam was not just a number in a headline—it represented 26 lives abruptly ended, families torn apart, and a community left scarred. Operation Sindoor was not simply about missiles and drones; it was about signaling that such brutality would not be tolerated. For the soldiers who carried out the strikes, it was a mission born of duty and sacrifice, carried out with precision to dismantle networks that threatened civilian life.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s claim of being the one to stop the conflict has been met with skepticism and even irritation in India. While world leaders often emphasize their role in global peace efforts, many in New Delhi see Trump’s statements as more about domestic politics and image-building than about ground realities. For them, the true story is that of India’s resolve to act against terrorism, and of its own institutions—military and political—ensuring that escalation did not spiral out of control.
The episode is a reminder of how international politics often blends fact with rhetoric. For India, what matters most is the memory of those lost in Pahalgam, the bravery of those who carried out Operation Sindoor, and the clarity of leadership that refused to allow outsiders to dictate national security decisions. And for the people directly affected, beyond the speeches and claims, the hope remains that peace—however fragile—will hold, so that ordinary lives on both sides of the border are not caught in the crossfire again.