India has firmly rejected China’s claim that it mediated between New Delhi and Islamabad during the May 7–10 military conflict, reiterating that the ceasefire and de-escalation were achieved solely through direct military-level talks between India and Pakistan.

India on Tuesday strongly dismissed China’s assertion that it played a mediating role in easing tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad during the military conflict earlier this year, reiterating that no third party was involved in the ceasefire decision.

The rejection came after Beijing claimed it had helped defuse the four-day standoff in May by engaging both sides diplomatically.

Responding to the claim, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) reiterated its long-standing position that issues with Pakistan are resolved bilaterally.

“The de-escalation of the situation was achieved through direct military-level communication between India and Pakistan,” an MEA spokesperson said, emphasising that established channels such as hotline talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) were used to restore calm.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in its statement, said Beijing had “maintained close communication with relevant parties” and had encouraged restraint to prevent further escalation.

Presenting itself as a responsible regional actor, China added that it remains committed to safeguarding peace and stability in South Asia.

India, however, has consistently rejected any suggestion of third-party facilitation, underlining that the ceasefire decision was taken independently by the two countries involved.

The May 7–10 Military Conflict and De-escalation

The brief but intense military conflict between India and Pakistan from May 7 to May 10 followed heightened tensions along the Line of Control (LoC), with reports of heavy cross-border firing and increased troop mobilisation.

While both sides refrained from releasing detailed casualty figures, the developments sparked widespread concern due to the risk of escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbours.

According to Indian officials, the situation stabilised after both sides activated pre-existing confidence-building measures.

These included direct communication between senior military commanders, particularly through the DGMO hotline, a mechanism designed to manage crises and prevent misunderstandings during periods of heightened tension.

Diplomatic sources in New Delhi stressed that these mechanisms have existed for decades and are routinely used during flare-ups.

“There was no external facilitation, mediation, or intervention,” a senior official said, adding that India’s position on bilateralism remains “clear, consistent, and non-negotiable.”

Pakistan has not directly contradicted China’s claim but has, in the past, welcomed international involvement in India–Pakistan disputes.

This divergence in diplomatic preferences continues to shape how each country frames moments of de-escalation on the global stage.

Diplomatic Narratives and Regional Power Dynamics

China’s claim of mediation must be viewed within the broader context of regional geopolitics. Beijing maintains close strategic ties with Pakistan while simultaneously managing a complex and often strained relationship with India, marked by unresolved border disputes and past military standoffs.

India’s rejection of third-party mediation is rooted in the 1972 Shimla Agreement and subsequent bilateral understandings, which commit both India and Pakistan to resolve their differences through peaceful, bilateral means.

Successive Indian governments-across political lines-have upheld this position, arguing that external involvement complicates rather than resolves conflicts.

Analysts note that claims of mediation are often used by global and regional powers to project diplomatic influence. “Such statements are as much about perception and positioning as they are about facts on the ground,” said a former diplomat, adding that de-escalation processes are often quieter and less dramatic than public narratives suggest.

Despite differing accounts, there is broad international relief that the May conflict did not spiral into a larger confrontation. Several countries had urged restraint during the standoff, reflecting global anxiety over rising regional tensions.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

While nations may disagree over diplomatic credit, the most important outcome is that violence was contained and lives were spared.

For communities living along borders, peace is not a geopolitical slogan but a daily necessity that determines safety, stability, and dignity.

The Logical Indian believes that lasting peace can only be sustained through honest dialogue, empathy, and respect for agreed frameworks-free from competitive posturing.

As global tensions rise, it is crucial for leaders to prioritise human lives over narratives of influence.