US did not play a ‘mediator’: India set its own course after Pahalgam, rebuffed mediation offers

Claims that the United States played a pivotal role in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s retaliatory Operation Sindoor are not entirely accurate. While there was communication, India made it clear from the outset that it did not seek external mediation.

The first call between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on May 1 was a notification — not a negotiation. India informed the US of its intention to strike back at Pakistan, with no ambiguity about the course it intended to take.

India’s stance was firm: “We don’t need anybody’s assistance.” The only continued engagement with the US was to coordinate support at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), where Washington sponsored a statement on the Pahalgam attack.

Following India’s successful targeting of key Pakistani air bases, Rubio reached out to Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir on May 10 before speaking again with Jaishankar. The US query was straightforward — if Pakistan halted its attacks, would India reciprocate? New Delhi’s response was equally direct: if they don’t fire, we won’t fire.

As expected, Pakistan resorted to nuclear rhetoric. According to sources, this pattern is typical when Islamabad is under pressure. “Pakistan has always done it when cornered and gave in to its benefactors,” a source said. Although some Pakistani ministers began invoking the nuclear option publicly, India received no direct communication on the issue, and it was not discussed during Rubio’s call with Jaishankar.

India is now preparing to escalate the matter diplomatically. A delegation will head to the UNSC with fresh evidence implicating Pakistan in cross-border terrorism. The UNSC's 1267 Sanctions Committee is expected to convene next week to examine the findings.