Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar has stated that India has consistently rejected any third-party mediation in dealing with bilateral issues, especially relating to Jammu and Kashmir. He declared that India told the United States and others that disputes must be handled directly between the two nations, not via intermediaries.
Dar made the remarks in an Al Jazeera interview, affirming that Islamabad has never requested external mediation in resolving tensions with New Delhi. The statement aligns with India’s long-held position and stands in contrast to claims by former U. S. President Donald Trump that the U. S. assisted or was involved in brokering peace or ceasefire understandings between the two countries.
In his comments, Dar said, “India has categorically been stating it’s bilateral matter.” That phrase underscores a diplomatic shift: Pakistan formally recognising and echoing India’s narrative about how disputes must be addressed.
Indian officials have repeatedly insisted that all disagreements with Pakistan be resolved under the framework of bilateral dialogue, referencing the 1972 Simla Agreement, which enshrined the principle that both nations should settle differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.
The claim by former U. S. President Trump—who stated that the U. S. played a role in mediating the ceasefire following Operation Sindoor—has been challenged by both Indian and Pakistani authorities. India has maintained that the ceasefire and related undertakings were the result of direct negotiations and military communication without mediation.
Diplomatic analysts view Dar’s acknowledgment as significant. It may reduce ambiguity at international forums about Pakistan’s stance, potentially affecting how other nations frame their foreign policy or involvement in South Asian diplomacy. Some observers warn, however, that this alignment might not immediately lead to improved bilateral relations, given that broader issues—terrorism accusations, border skirmishes, and political mistrust—remain deeply contentious.
Within Pakistan, reaction has been mixed. Some political circles welcome Dar’s statement as bringing clarity and possibly paving the way for renewed dialogue. Others argue that simply echoing India’s approach does little to address Islamabad’s concerns about Kashmir, which include demands for international – or at least neutral observation or intervention in human rights matters.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Rebuild Khajuraho Vishnu Idol 