China has triggered fresh diplomatic chatter by claiming that it mediated tensions between India and Pakistan during their military confrontation earlier this year, a statement that has been firmly dismissed by people familiar with developments in New Delhi. Officials and diplomats have described the Chinese claim as “bizarre”, stressing that Beijing played no role in ending the hostilities.

The assertion was made by Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi while addressing the Symposium on the International Situation and China’s Foreign Relations in Beijing on Tuesday. In his remarks, Wang listed several global and regional conflicts that China had supposedly helped defuse in 2025.

“This year, local wars and cross-border conflicts flared up more often than at any time since the end of World War II. Geopolitical turbulence continued to spread,” Wang said. He then added that, following what he described as China’s approach to resolving “hotspot issues”, Beijing had mediated in northern Myanmar, the Iranian nuclear issue, tensions between Pakistan and India, the Palestine-Israel conflict, and the recent Cambodia–Thailand clashes.

Background: India–Pakistan Standoff in May

India and Pakistan were locked in an intense military confrontation in May following the April 22 terror attack in the Pahalgam valley of Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. India responded with Operation Sindoor, launching precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

The situation escalated into several days of exchanges involving drones, missiles, and long-range weapons, raising fears of a wider conflict. Eventually, both sides agreed to halt military action, bringing the confrontation to an end.

New Delhi Rejects China’s Claim

People in New Delhi with knowledge of the developments said China had no role whatsoever in de-escalating the crisis. According to them, the decision to stop military action was the outcome of direct discussions between senior military officials of India and Pakistan, particularly through established channels between the two sides’ Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs).

“The claim by the Chinese side is bizarre,” one such person said, emphasising that the ceasefire understanding was strictly bilateral.

Another official pointed out that India has consistently maintained that there is no scope for third-party mediation in matters concerning India and Pakistan. “Perhaps the Chinese side is following in the footsteps of the US,” the person said, referring to US President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that Washington had mediated a truce between the two nuclear-armed neighbours—claims that India has also categorically rejected.

China’s Role During the Conflict Under Scrutiny

China’s remarks come against the backdrop of its close military relationship with Pakistan. Earlier reports had suggested that Beijing provided real-time surveillance inputs and other forms of support to Islamabad during the May confrontation. Indian officials have also said that China used the conflict to showcase the capabilities of its weapon systems.

China is Pakistan’s largest defence supplier, accounting for more than 80% of Pakistan’s arms imports, a fact that has long been a source of concern for New Delhi.

While Beijing has not elaborated on what it means by “mediation” in the India–Pakistan context, Indian officials say there is no evidence of any Chinese diplomatic intervention that contributed to the ceasefire.

No Official Indian Statement Yet

As of now, there has been no formal response from the Indian government to Wang Yi’s remarks. However, the strong reactions from officials and diplomats familiar with the matter underline New Delhi’s consistent position: the resolution of tensions with Pakistan was achieved through direct bilateral military engagement, without the involvement of any external power.

China’s claim, coming soon after similar assertions by the US president, has reinforced India’s sensitivities about third-party narratives surrounding the May conflict. For New Delhi, the message remains unchanged—dialogue or de-escalation with Pakistan, when it occurs, is strictly a matter between the two countries alone.