New Delhi Calls China’s Mediation Claim ‘Bizarre’, It Part of the Power Politics Game

New Delhi has categorically dismissed China’s claim of having “mediated” between India and Pakistan during last year’s military confrontation as “bizarre,” underlining once again that no third party played any role in ending hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. The reaction comes after Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi listed India-Pakistan tensions among issues Beijing had allegedly helped resolve in 2025.

On Tuesday (December 30), Wang Yi, while speaking at the “Symposium on the International Situation and China’s Foreign Relations” in Beijing, claimed that China had mediated several global flashpoints. “Following this Chinese approach to settling hotspot issues, we mediated in northern Myanmar, the Iranian nuclear issue, the tensions between Pakistan and India, the issues between Palestine and Israel, and the recent conflict between Cambodia and Thailand,” he said.

Those who follow geopolitics know that similar claims were made by the US President Donald Trump. Despite these claims, the mentioned conflicts are still burning. Peace looks distant, but these great powers are claiming that they have their role just to make a good perception in world politics.

People familiar with the matter in New Delhi told Hindustan Times on Wednesday (December 31) that China had no role whatsoever in the ceasefire understanding between India and Pakistan. “The claim by the Chinese side is bizarre,” one of the people was quoted as saying, adding that discussions leading to the cessation of military action were held exclusively between senior military officials of the two countries.

India and Pakistan were involved in a four-day military conflict in May 2025 following the Pahalgam terror attack a month earlier, in which 26 civilians were killed. In response, India launched precision strikes on terror camps inside Pakistan under Operation Sindoor. Subsequently, the two sides agreed to halt military action on May 10.

Importantly, New Delhi has maintained since then that the ceasefire was achieved through direct communication between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan. According to officials cited in the HT report, “discussions held only between senior military officials from India and Pakistan led to the agreement to stop military action.”

Moreover, Indian officials reiterated that there is no space for third-party involvement in matters concerning India and Pakistan. “Perhaps the Chinese side is following in the footsteps of the US,” a second person told HT, pointing to US President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that Washington had helped mediate a truce. Notably, India has also categorically rejected Trump’s claims on multiple occasions.

Also Read: ‘No Mediation, No Trade Talk’: Modi Draws the Line in Call With Trump

“We have already refuted such claims. On bilateral issues between India and Pakistan, there is no role for a third party. Our position has been clarified on several occasions in the past that the India-Pakistan ceasefire was agreed to directly between the DGMOs of the two countries,” a government source told India Today.

Against this backdrop, China’s latest claim highlights a broader pattern among major powers attempting to insert themselves into South Asian security dynamics. While India has consistently emphasised restraint and escalation control after achieving its stated military objectives—namely, the obliteration of terrorist infrastructure—external actors appear keen to appropriate diplomatic credit.

Analysts note that both the US and China are engaged in projecting themselves as indispensable global mediators at a time when international conflicts are proliferating. Consequently, claiming involvement in de-escalating India-Pakistan tensions serves a symbolic purpose for these powers, even if it contradicts ground realities and official Indian statements.

Furthermore, such claims also risk diluting India’s long-standing position that issues with Pakistan are strictly bilateral, as outlined in the Shimla Agreement and reaffirmed repeatedly by successive Indian governments. By rejecting third-party mediation, New Delhi seeks to prevent the internationalisation of disputes that Pakistan has often attempted to globalise.

In this context, China’s assertion appears less about actual mediation and more about diplomatic signalling. While Beijing has close ties with Islamabad, New Delhi’s firm response underscores that any attempt to rewrite the narrative of the May 2025 ceasefire will be challenged.

Ultimately, India’s message remains unambiguous: the cessation of hostilities after Operation Sindoor was a direct outcome of military-to-military communication, not external mediation. As New Delhi continues to clarify its stance, claims by global powers—whether from Washington or Beijing—only reinforce India’s determination to guard its strategic autonomy and narrative on matters of national security.