IndiaPakistan

Pakistan has welcomed Sikh pilgrims from India in the first major crossing since their deadly conflict in May closed the land border between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

More than 2,100 pilgrims were granted visas to attend a 10-day festival marking 556 years since the birth of Guru Nanak, founder of the Sikh faith, a decision that was in line with efforts to promote “interreligious and intercultural harmony and understanding”, Pakistan’s high commission in New Delhi said last week.

In May, Islamabad and New Delhi engaged in their worst fighting since 1999, leaving more than 70 people dead. The Wagah-Attari border, the only active land crossing between the two countries, was closed to general traffic after the violence.

On Wednesday, the pilgrims will gather at Nankana Sahib, Guru Nanak’s birthplace west of Lahore, before visiting other sacred sites in Pakistan, including Kartarpur, where the guru is buried.

The Kartarpur Corridor, a visa-free route opened in 2019 to allow Indian Sikhs to visit the temple without crossing the main border, has remained closed since the conflict.

Four days of conflict erupted in May after New Delhi accused Islamabad of backing a deadly attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, allegations Pakistan denied.

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion founded in the 15th century in Punjab, a region spanning parts of present-day India and Pakistan. While most Sikhs migrated to India during partition, some of their most revered places of worship are in Pakistan.

A forum of regional countries, including India, voiced opposition to any foreign military infrastructure in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan’s regional neighbours, including India, have voiced a rare unified front by opposing foreign attempts to deploy “military infrastructure” in the country, as United States President Donald Trump presses to regain control of the Bagram airbase.

In a joint statement on Tuesday, members of the Moscow Format of Consultations on Afghanistan – which include US allies India and Pakistan – “reaffirmed their unwavering support for the establishment of Afghanistan as an independent, united and peaceful state”. The forum also includes Russia, China, Iran and Central Asian nations, all of whom strongly oppose any US return presence in Afghanistan.

The members “called unacceptable the attempts by countries to deploy their military infrastructure in Afghanistan and neighbouring states, since this does not serve the interests of regional peace and stability”.

Though the statement echoes last year’s forum language, it suggests broad regional opposition to Trump’s push to return to Bagram, which he handed over to Afghanistan’s Taliban five years ago as part of a deal paving the way for the US withdrawal from Kabul.

In backing the statement, India – a longtime US ally – navigates fraying ties with Washington and apparent rapprochement with the Taliban, which it long opposed but has in recent years cultivated ties with.

In the latest diplomatic outreach, India is set to welcome the Taliban’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi for a historic first visit to New Delhi this week, lasting from October 9-16.

After attending the Moscow forum, Muttaqi emphasised that Afghanistan will not accept any foreign military presence. “Afghanistan is a free and independent country, and throughout history, it has never accepted the military presence of foreigners,” he said. “Our decision and policy will remain the same to keep Afghanistan free and independent.”

Last month, Trump threatened “bad things” would happen to Afghanistan if it did not give back Bagram, and cited what he called its strategic location near China. The Taliban has rejected Trump’s calls to return the base.

Bagram is about 800km (about 500 miles) from the Chinese border, and about 2,400km (about 1,500 miles) from the nearest Chinese missile factory in Xinjiang.

Trump has referred to China as a key reason for wanting to retake control of Bagram, saying last month in London that the base is “an hour away from where [China] makes its nuclear weapons”.

Current and former US officials have cast doubt on Trump’s goal, saying that reoccupying Bagram might end up looking like a reinvasion, requiring more than 10,000 troops as well as the deployment of advanced air defences.

“The sheer logistics of negotiating redeployment and handing back would be extremely challenging and lengthy, and it’s not clear that this would serve either side’s strategic interests,” said Ashley Jackson, co-director at the Geneva-headquartered Centre on Armed Groups.

Bagram, a sprawling complex, was the main base for US forces in Afghanistan during the two decades of war that followed the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington by al-Qaeda.

Thousands of people were imprisoned at the site for years without charge or trial by US forces during its so-called “war on terror”, and many of them were abused or tortured.

The Taliban retook the facility in 2021 following the US withdrawal, which Trump first set in motion in his first term as president, and the collapse of the Afghan government with Joe Biden in the White House.

India’s cricket team hoisted an imaginary trophy after winning the 2025 Asia Cup against Pakistan, refusing to accept the real one from Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi. The match came four months after a brief aerial war between the two nuclear-armed rivals over a deadly attack on a tourist area in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Islamabad, Pakistan – For the second time in three years, catastrophic monsoon floods have carved a path of destruction across Pakistan’s north and central regions, particularly in its Punjab province, submerging villages, drowning farmland, displacing millions and killing hundreds.

This year, India – Pakistan’s archrival and a nuclear-armed neighbour – is also reeling. Its northern states, including Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Indian Punjab, have seen widespread flooding as heavy monsoon rains swell rivers on both sides of the border.

Pakistani authorities say that since late June, when the monsoon season began, at least 884 people have died nationally, more than 220 of them in Punjab. On the Indian side, the casualty count has crossed 100, with more than 30 dead in Indian Punjab.

Yet, shared suffering hasn’t brought the neighbours closer: In Pakistan’s Punjab, which borders India, federal minister Ahsan Iqbal has, in fact, accused New Delhi of deliberately releasing excess water from dams without timely warnings.

“India has started using water as a weapon and has caused wide-scale flooding in Punjab,” Iqbal said last month, citing releases into the Ravi, Sutlej and Chenab rivers, all of which originate in Indian territory and flow into Pakistan.

Iqbal further said that releasing flood water was the “worst example of water aggression” by India, which he said threatened lives, property and livelihoods.

“Some issues should be beyond politics, and water cooperation must be one of them,” the minister said on August 27, while he participated in rescue efforts in Narowal city, his constituency that borders India.

Those accusations come amid heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, and the breakdown of a six-decade-old pact that helped them share waters for rivers that are lifelines to both nations.

But experts argue that the evidence is thin to suggest that India might have deliberately sought to flood Pakistan – and the larger nation’s own woes point to the risks of such a strategy, even if New Delhi were to contemplate it.

Weaponising water

Relations between India and Pakistan, already at a historic low, plummeted further in April after the Pahalgam attack, in which gunmen killed 26 civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan for the attack and walked out of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), the transboundary agreement that governs the Indus Basin’s six rivers.

Pakistan rejected the accusation that it was in any way behind the Pahalgam attack. But in early May, the neighbours waged a four-day conflict, targeting each other’s military bases with missiles and drones in the gravest military escalation between them in almost three decades.

Under the IWT, the two countries were required to exchange detailed water-flow data regularly. With India no longer adhering to the pact, fears have mounted in recent months that New Delhi could either try to stop the flow of water into Pakistan, or flood its western neighbour through sudden, large releases.

After New Delhi suspended its participation in the IWT, India’s Home Minister Amit Shah in June said the treaty would never be restored, a stance that prompted protests in Pakistan and accusations of “water terrorism”.

But while the Indian government has not issued a formal response to accusations that it has chosen to flood Pakistan, the Indian High Commission in Islamabad has, in the last two weeks, shared several warnings of possible cross-border flooding on “humanitarian grounds”.

And water experts say that attributing Pakistan’s floods primarily to Indian water releases from dams is an “oversimplification” of the causes of the crisis that risks obscuring the urgent, shared challenges posed by climate change and ageing infrastructure.

“The Indian decision to release water from their dam has not caused flooding in Pakistan,” said Daanish Mustafa, a professor of critical geography at King’s College London.

“India has major dams on its rivers, which eventually make their way to Pakistan. Any excess water that will be released from these rivers will significantly impact India’s own states first,” he told Al Jazeera.

Shared monsoon strain

Both Pakistan and India depend on glaciers in the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges to feed their rivers. For Pakistan, the Indus river basin is a lifeline. It supplies water to most of the country’s roughly 250 million people and underpins its agriculture.

Under the IWT, India controls the three eastern rivers – Ravi, Sutlej and Beas – while Pakistan controls the three western rivers, Jhelum, Chenab and Indus.

India is obligated to allow waters of the western rivers to flow into Pakistan with limited exceptions, and to provide timely, detailed hydrological data.

India has built dams on the eastern rivers it controls, and the flow of the Ravi and Sutlej into Pakistan has considerably reduced since then. It has also built dams on some of the western rivers – it is allowed to, under the treaty, as long as that does not affect the volume of water flowing into Pakistan.

But melting glaciers and an unusually intense summer monsoon pushed river levels on both sides of the border dangerously high this year.

In Pakistan, glacial outbursts followed by heavy rains raised levels in the western rivers, while surging flows put infrastructure on the eastern rivers in India at serious risk.

Mustafa of King’s College said that dams – like other infrastructure – are designed keeping in mind a safe capacity of water that they can hold, and are typically meant to operate for about 100 years. But climate change has dramatically altered the average rainfall that might have been taken into account while designing these projects.

“The parameters used to build the dams are now obsolete and meaningless,” he said. “When the capacity of the dams is exceeded, water must be released or it will put the entire structure at risk of destruction.”

Among the major dams upstream in Indian territory are Salal and Baglihar on the Chenab; Pong on the Beas; Bhakra on the Sutlej; and Ranjit Sagar (also known as Thein) on the Ravi.

These dams are based in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, Indian Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, with vast areas of Indian territory between them and the border.

Blaming India for the flooding in Pakistan makes no sense, said Shiraz Memon, a former Pakistani representative on the bilateral commission tasked under the IWT to monitor the implementation of the pact.

“Instead of acknowledging that India has shared warnings, we are blaming them of water terrorism. It is [a] simple, natural flood phenomenon,” Memon said, adding that by the end of August, reservoirs across the region were full.

“With water at capacity, spillways had to be opened for downstream releases. This is a natural solution as there is no other option available,” he told Al Jazeera.

Politics of blame

According to September 3 data on India’s Central Water Commission website, at least a dozen sites face a “severe” flood situation, and another 19 are above normal flood levels.

The same day, Pakistan’s Ministry of Water Resources issued a notification, quoting a message from the Indian High Commission, warning of “high flood” on the Sutlej and Tawi rivers.

It was the fourth such notice by India after three earlier warnings last week, but none contained detailed hydrological data.

Pakistan’s Meteorological Department, in a report on September 4, said on the Pakistani side, two sites on the Sutlej and Ravi faced “extremely high” flood levels, while two other sites on the Ravi and Chenab saw “very high” levels.

The sheer volume of water during an intense monsoon often exceeds any single dam or barrage’s capacity. Controlled releases have become a necessary, if dangerous, part of flood management on both sides of the border, said experts.

They added that while the IWT obliged India to alert Pakistan to abnormal flows, Pakistan also needs better monitoring and real-time data systems rather than relying solely on diplomatic exchanges.

The blame game, analysts warn, can serve short-term political purposes on both sides, especially after May’s conflict.

For India, suspending the treaty is framed as a firm stance against what it sees as Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism. For Pakistan, blaming India can provide a political scapegoat that distracts from domestic failures in flood mitigation and governance.

“Rivers are living, breathing entities. This is what they do; they are always on the move. You cannot control the flood, especially a high or severe flood,” academic Mustafa said.

Blaming India won’t stop the floods. But, he added, it appears to be an “easy way out to relinquish responsibility”.

Islamabad, Pakistan – India on August 20 announced that it had successfully test-fired Agni-V, its intermediate-range ballistic missile, from a test range in Odisha on its eastern Bay of Bengal coast.

The Agni-V, meaning “fire” in Sanskrit, is 17.5 metres long, weighs 50,000kg, and can carry more than 1,000kg of nuclear or conventional payload. Capable of travelling more than 5,000km at hypersonic speeds of nearly 30,000km per hour, it is among the fastest ballistic missiles in the world.

The Agni test came exactly a week after Pakistan announced the formation of a new Army Rocket Force Command (ARFC), aimed, say experts, at plugging holes in its defensive posture exposed by India during the four-day conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours in May.

But experts say the latest Indian test might be a message less for Pakistan and more for another neighbour that New Delhi is cautiously warming up to again: China.

The Agni’s range puts most of Asia, including China’s northern regions, and parts of Europe within reach. This was the missile’s 10th test since 2012 and its first since March last year, but its timing, say analysts, was significant.

It came just ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, amid a thaw in ties – after years of tension over their disputed border – that has been accelerated by United States President Donald Trump’s tariff war against India. On Wednesday, the US tariffs on Indian goods doubled to 50 percent amid tensions over New Delhi’s oil purchases from Russia.

Yet despite that shift in ties with Beijing, India continues to view China as its primary threat in the neighbourhood, say experts, underscoring the complex relationship between the world’s two most populous nations. And it’s at China that India’s development of medium and long-range missiles is primarily aimed, they say.

India’s missile advantage over Pakistan

While India acknowledged losing an unspecified number of fighter jets during the May skirmish with Pakistan, it also inflicted significant damage on Pakistani military bases, particularly with its supersonic BrahMos cruise missiles.

The BrahMos, capable of carrying nuclear or conventional payloads of up to 300kg, has a range of about 500km. Its low altitude, terrain-hugging trajectory and blistering speed make it difficult to intercept, allowing it to penetrate Pakistani territory with relative ease.

Many experts argue that this context shows the Agni-V test is not directly linked to Pakistan’s announcement of the ARFC. Instead, they say, the test was likely a signal to China. Indian and Chinese troops were in an eyeball-to-eyeball standoff along their disputed Himalayan border for four years after a deadly clash in 2020, before Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Russia in October 2024 to begin a process of detente.

Modi’s visit to China for the SCO summit on Sunday will be his first to that country since 2018. In the past, India has often felt betrayed by overtures to China, which, it claims, have frequently been followed by aggression from Beijing along their border.

“India’s requirement for a long-range, but not intercontinental, missile is dictated by its threat perception of China,” Manpreet Sethi, a distinguished fellow at the New Delhi-based Centre for Air Power Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“Agni-V is a nuclear-capable ballistic missile of 5,000km range, which India has been developing as part of its nuclear deterrence capability against China. It has no relevance to Pakistan,” Sethi added.

Christopher Clary, assistant professor of political science at the University at Albany, agreed.

“While the Agni-V might be usable against Pakistan, its primary mission would involve strikes on China,” he told Al Jazeera. “China’s east coast, where its most economically and politically important cities are situated, is hard to reach from India and requires long-range missiles.”

Missile race across South Asia

India and Pakistan have been steadily expanding their missile arsenals in recent years, unveiling new systems with increasing reach.

Before announcing the ARFC, Pakistan showcased the Fatah-4, a cruise missile with a 750km range and the capability to carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.

India, meanwhile, is working on Agni-VI, which is expected to have a range exceeding 10,000km and carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), a capability already present in Agni-V.

MIRV-enabled missiles can carry several nuclear warheads, each capable of striking a separate target, significantly boosting their destructive potential.

Mansoor Ahmed, an honorary lecturer at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, said India’s latest test demonstrates its growing intercontinental missile capabilities.

“With India working on different variants of Agni with multiple capabilities, this test was a technological demonstrator for India’s emerging submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) capability,” Ahmed said.

“Depending on the configuration of the warheads for India’s SLBMs, India will be able to deploy anywhere between 200-300 warheads on its SSBN force alone over the next decade,” he added. SSBNs (ship, submersible, ballistic, nuclear) are nuclear-powered submarines designed to carry SLBMs armed with nuclear warheads. India currently has two SSBNs in service, with two more under construction.

Pakistan, by contrast, does not possess long-range missiles or nuclear submarines. Its longest-range operational ballistic missile, the Shaheen-III, has a range of 2,750km.

“Pakistan also has South Asia’s first MIRV-enabled ballistic missile called Ababeel, which can strike up to 2,200km range, but it is the shortest-ranged MIRV-enabled system deployed by any nuclear-armed state,” Ahmed said.

Tughral Yamin, a former Pakistani army brigadier and nuclear policy scholar, said the countries’ missile ambitions reflect divergent priorities.

“Pakistan’s programme is entirely Indian-specific and defensive in nature, while India’s ambitions extend beyond the subcontinent. Its long-range systems are designed for global power projection, particularly vis-a-vis China, and to establish itself as a great power with credible deterrence against major states,” said Yamin, author of The Evolution of Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia.

But some experts say Pakistan’s missile development programme isn’t only about India.

Ashley J Tellis, the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), said that while “India wants to be able to range China and Pakistan,” Islamabad is building the capability to keep Israel – and even the US – in its range, in addition to India.

“The conventional missile force in both countries is designed to strike critical targets without putting manned strike aircraft at risk,” Tellis told Al Jazeera.

US concerns over Pakistan’s ambitions, quiet acceptance of India’s rise

Pakistan’s missile programme came under intense spotlight in December last year when a senior White House official warned of Islamabad’s growing ambitions.

Jon Finer, serving in the then-Biden administration, described Pakistan’s pursuit of advanced missile technology as an “emerging threat” to the United States.

“If the trend continues, Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including in the United States,” Finer said during an event at the CEIP.

By contrast, Tellis said India’s growing arsenal is not viewed as destabilising by Washington or its allies.

“Pakistan’s capabilities in contrast are viewed as unsettling because the early history of its nuclear programme had anti-Western overtones, sentiments that have taken on a specific anti-US colouration after 9/11 and the Abbottabad raid,” Tellis explained, referring to the US capture of Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan in 2011.

Ahmed, the Canberra-based academic, said India’s long-range missile development is openly supported by Western powers as part of the US-led Asia Pacific strategy.

“The US and European powers have viewed and encouraged India to act as a net security provider. The India-US civil nuclear deal and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver effectively gave India de facto nuclear weapons status without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he said.

The NPT is a Cold War-era treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and advancing the goal of nuclear disarmament. It formally recognises only the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain as nuclear weapons states.

But the 2008 waiver from the NSG – a club of 48 nations that sell nuclear material and technology – allowed India to engage in global nuclear trade despite not being an NPT signatory, a unique status that elevated its global standing.

Clary from the University of Albany, however, pointed out that unlike the Biden administration, the current Trump White House has not expressed any concerns about Pakistan’s missile programme – or about India’s Agni-V test.

“For now, so long as Pakistan keeps its missile tests limited to ranges already demonstrated by the Shaheen-III and Ababeel, I don’t expect Western governments to concern themselves overly with South Asia’s missile developments,” he said. “There are more than enough other problems to keep them busy.”

US president, who has claimed credit for the truce in May, says planes were being shot out of the air.

United States President Donald Trump has said up to five fighter jets were shot down during the recent India-Pakistan conflict, which erupted after an April attack in Indian-administered Kashmir brought the nuclear-armed neighbours to the cusp of their fifth all-out war, before a ceasefire in May.

Trump, who made his remarks at a dinner with a number of Republican US lawmakers at the White House on Friday, did not specify which side’s jets he was referring to.

“In fact, planes were being shot out of the air. Five, five, four or five, but I think five jets were shot down actually,” Trump said while talking about the India-Pakistan hostilities, without elaborating or providing further detail.

Pakistan has claimed it downed five Indian planes in air-to-air combat.

India’s highest-ranking general said in late May that India switched tactics after suffering losses in the air on the first day of hostilities and established an advantage before a ceasefire was announced three days later.

India also claimed it downed “a few planes” of Pakistan. Islamabad denied suffering any losses of planes but acknowledged its airbases suffered hits.

Truce deal

Trump has repeatedly claimed credit, and complained he has not been feted for it, for the ceasefire between India and Pakistan that he announced on social media on May 10 after Washington held talks with both sides.

India has contradicted Trump’s claims that the ceasefire resulted from his intervention and his threats to sever trade talks.

New Delhi’s stated position has been that it reached an agreement bilaterally with Pakistan, and that they must solve their problems directly and with no outside involvement.

India is an increasingly important US partner in Washington’s effort to counter China’s influence in Asia, while Pakistan is a US ally, finding a new lease of diplomatic favour in the Trump administration.

The White House on Thursday said, however, that no Trump visit was scheduled to Pakistan “at this time” after widespread local reports of a trip.

The April attack in Indian-administered Kashmir killed 26 people and led to heavy fighting between the two sides in the latest escalation of a decades-old rivalry.

New Delhi blamed the attack on Pakistan, which denied responsibility, while calling for a neutral investigation.

Washington condemned the attack but did not directly blame Islamabad.

On May 7, Indian jets bombed sites across the border that New Delhi described as “terrorist infrastructure”, setting off an exchange of attacks between the two countries by fighter jets, missiles, drones, and artillery that killed dozens until the ceasefire was reached.

New Delhi put into ‘abeyance’ its participation in the 1960 transboundary treaty after 26 people were killed in Indian-administered Kashmir in April.

India will never restore the Indus Waters Treaty with neighbouring Pakistan, and the water flowing there will be diverted for internal use, says federal Home Minister Amit Shah.

India put into “abeyance” its participation in the 1960 treaty, which governs the usage of the Indus River system, after 26 people were killed in Indian-administered Kashmir in April, in what New Delhi described as an act of terror backed by Pakistan.

Pakistan denied involvement in the incident, which led to days of fighting between the two nuclear powers – their worst military escalation in decades, bringing them to the brink of another war.

Despite a ceasefire agreed upon by the two nations last month, Shah said his government would not restore the treaty, which guaranteed water access for 80 percent of Pakistan’s farms through three rivers originating in India.

“It will never be restored,” Shah told The Times of India newspaper in an interview on Saturday.

“We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan by constructing a canal. Pakistan will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably,” he added, referring to the northwestern Indian desert state.

The transboundary water agreement allows the two countries to share water flowing from the Indus basin, giving India control of three eastern Himalayan rivers – Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas – while Pakistan got control of the three western rivers – Jhelum, Chenab, and Indus.

The treaty also established the India-Pakistan Indus Commission, which is supposed to resolve any problems that arise. So far, it has survived previous armed conflicts and near-constant tensions between India and Pakistan over the past 65 years.

However, the comments from Shah, the most powerful minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cabinet, have dimmed Islamabad’s hopes for negotiations on the treaty in the near term.

Pakistan has not yet responded to Shah’s comments. But it has said in the past that the treaty has no provision for one side to unilaterally pull back, and that any blocking of river water flowing to Pakistan will be considered “an act of war”.

“The treaty can’t be amended, nor can it be terminated by any party unless both agree,” Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said last month.

Islamabad is also exploring a legal challenge to India’s decision to hold the treaty in abeyance under international law.

Legal experts told Al Jazeera in April that the treaty cannot be unilaterally suspended, and that it can only be modified by mutual agreement between the parties.

“India has used the word ‘abeyance’, and there is no such provision to ‘hold it in abeyance’ in the treaty,” Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a Pakistani lawyer, told Al Jazeera. “It also violates customary international laws relating to upper and lower riparian, where the upper riparian cannot stop the water promise for the lower riparian.”

Anuttama Banerji, a political analyst based in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera in April that the treaty might continue, but not in its present form.

“Instead, it will be up for ‘revision’, ‘review’ and ‘modification’ – all three meaning different things – considering newer challenges such as groundwater depletion and climate change were not catered for in the original treaty,” Banerji said.

Trump has repeatedly said he averted a nuclear war, saved millions of lives – and grumbled that he got no credit for it.

Pakistan says it would recommend United States President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, an accolade that he has said he craves.

In May, a surprise announcement by Trump of a ceasefire brought an abrupt end to a four-day conflict between nuclear-armed foes India and Pakistan.

Trump has since repeatedly said that he averted a nuclear war, saved millions of lives and grumbled that he got no credit for it.

Pakistan agrees that US diplomatic intervention ended the fighting, but India says it was a bilateral agreement between the two militaries.

“President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi, which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation,” Islamabad said in a statement posted on X.

“This intervention stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker and his commitment to conflict resolution through dialogue.”

Governments can nominate people for the Nobel Peace Prize. There was no immediate response from Washington, DC, or New Delhi.

Some analysts in Pakistan said the move might persuade Trump to think again about potentially joining Israel in striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Pakistan has condemned Israel’s action as a violation of international law and a threat to regional stability.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump gave a long list of conflicts he said he had resolved, including India and Pakistan and the so-called Abraham Accords in his first term between Israel and some Muslim-majority countries. He added: “I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do.”

Pandering to Trump’s ‘ego’?

Trump has repeatedly said that he is willing to mediate between India and Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir region, their main source of enmity. Islamabad, which has long called for international attention to Kashmir, is delighted.

But his stance has upended US policy in South Asia, which had favoured India as a counterweight to China, and put in question previously close relations between Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Pakistan’s move to nominate Trump came in the same week its army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, met the US president for lunch. It was the first time that a Pakistani military leader had been invited to the White House when a civilian government was in place in Islamabad.

Trump’s planned meeting with Modi at the G7 summit in Canada last week did not take place after the US president left early, but the two later spoke by phone, in which Modi said “India does not and will never accept mediation” in its dispute with Pakistan, according to the Indian government.

Mushahid Hussain, a former chair of the Senate Defence Committee in Pakistan’s parliament, suggested nominating Trump for the peace prize was justified.

“Trump is good for Pakistan,” he said. “If this panders to Trump’s ego, so be it. All the European leaders have been sucking up to him big time.”

But the move was not universally applauded in Pakistan, where Trump’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza has inflamed passions.

“Israel’s sugar daddy in Gaza and cheerleader of its attacks on Iran isn’t a candidate for any prize,” said Talat Hussain, a prominent Pakistani television political talk show host, in a post on X.

“And what if he starts to kiss Modi on both cheeks again after a few months?”

Donald Trump had said last month that the nuclear-armed neighbours agreed to a ceasefire after talks mediated by the US.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it clear to United States President Donald Trump that a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a four-day conflict in May was achieved through talks between the two militaries and not US mediation, a top diplomat in New Delhi says.

“PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-U.S. trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan,” Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a press statement on Wednesday.

“Talks for ceasing military action happened directly between India and Pakistan through existing military channels, and on the insistence of Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi emphasised that India has not accepted mediation in the past and will never do,” he said.

Misri said the two leaders spoke over the phone late on Tuesday on Trump’s insistence after the two leaders were unable to meet on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada, which Modi attended as a guest. The call lasted 35 minutes.

Trump had said last month that the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours agreed to the ceasefire after talks mediated by the US, and that the hostilities ended after he urged the countries to focus on trade instead of war.

There was no immediate comment from the White House on the Modi-Trump call.

Pakistan has previously said the ceasefire was agreed after its military returned a call the Indian military had initiated on May 7.

In an interview with Al Jazeera in May, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar rejected claims that Washington mediated the truce and insisted Islamabad acted independently.

The conflict between India and Pakistan was triggered by an April 22 attack in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, in which 26 civilians, almost all tourists, were killed. India blamed armed groups allegedly backed by Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denied.

On May 7, India launched missile strikes at multiple sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Over the next three days, the two countries exchanged artillery and air raids, hitting each other’s airbases.

Pakistan said at least 51 people, including 11 soldiers and several children, were killed in Indian attacks.

India’s military said at least five members of the armed forces were killed in Operation Sindoor, under which it launched the cross-border strikes.

Misri said Trump expressed his support for India’s fight against “terrorism” and that Modi told him Operation Sindoor was still on.