WASHINGTON, DC (IANS) – The U.S. State Department has reignited the controversial interest in mediating the Kashmir dispute, drawing a sharp contrast with India’s consistent opposition to third-party involvement.

Responding to a reporter’s question during a regular press briefing on June 10, State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce said, “Obviously, I can’t speak to what’s on the mind or the plans of the president,” when asked about Trump’s purported mediation offer. However, she added, “It shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’d want to manage something like that,” referring to the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir.

Bruce went further, stating that Trump has historically taken steps aimed at resolving “generational differences between countries” and has managed to bring unlikely parties to the negotiating table. “While I can’t speak to his plans, the world knows his nature,” she added. “You can call the White House. I have a feeling they would have plenty to say.”

India, meanwhile, reiterated its firm stand against any external involvement. Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, “We have a long-standing national position that any issues pertaining to the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir have to be addressed by India and Pakistan bilaterally. That stated policy has not changed.” He emphasized that the key issue remains Pakistan’s illegal occupation of Indian territory.

India’s refusal to entertain third-party mediation is grounded in bilateral agreements, notably the 1972 Simla Agreement, which mandates that all issues be resolved directly between New Delhi and Islamabad.

Tensions flared again over a recent claim by Bruce that the U.S. had played a role in bringing about a ceasefire in the four-day military confrontation last month between the two countries. She credited the cessation of hostilities to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Trump, and Vice President JD Vance, saying, “Thank God but also thank Secretary Rubio and President Trump and the Vice President.”

India has firmly rejected these assertions. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a parliamentary committee that the ceasefire was a bilateral decision, stating that the U.S. had no role in brokering peace. “It was the force of Indian arms that compelled Pakistan to stop its firing,” he said, referring to the successful execution of Operation Sindoor.

Jaiswal echoed this stance, citing an early morning airstrike on May 10 that targeted key Pakistani Air Force bases. “That was the reason they were now willing to stop firing and military action,” he said.

Bruce also declined to provide specifics when asked whether Pakistan gave any assurances on acting against terrorist elements during a recent meeting between former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Allison Hooker. “I am not going to discuss the details of those conversations,” she said.

While U.S. officials continue to raise the prospect of intervention, India maintains that any resolution on Kashmir lies strictly within the bilateral framework.

@IW