Recent statements made by former U.S. President Donald Trump regarding India and Pakistan have stirred controversy and prompted rebuttals from the Indian government. Trump has claimed that his intervention was crucial in de-escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, even suggesting he averted a potential "nuclear conflict." These claims have been met with skepticism and direct contradiction from Indian officials.

Trump's narrative centers around the idea that he used trade as leverage to persuade both India and Pakistan to halt hostilities. He stated that he told the leaders of both nations that trade with the U.S. would be contingent on ending the conflict. According to Trump, this approach led to a swift agreement to de-escalate.

However, the Indian government has refuted this account. A spokesperson for India's foreign ministry clarified that while discussions did occur between Indian and U.S. leaders during the period of heightened tensions, trade was never a topic of conversation. The Indian government maintains that the decision to halt military action was a sovereign one, based on its own strategic assessment and actions.

Adding to the controversy, Trump has made several public remarks praising Pakistan, describing its people as "brilliant" and its products as "incredible." These statements have raised eyebrows, particularly in light of Trump's past criticism of Pakistan and his administration's decision to suspend aid to the country. Some observers have speculated that Trump's recent shift in tone may be linked to potential business deals or investments in Pakistan involving his family. Specifically, there are reports of a cryptocurrency agreement between Pakistan and a company in which Trump's family reportedly holds a 60% stake. The deal, aimed at transforming Pakistan into a South Asian crypto hub, was allegedly pushed by Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff.

Adding fuel to the fire, it has been revealed that Trump appointed new members to a religious advisory board, including individuals with controversial backgrounds. One appointee, Ismile Royer, reportedly trained with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a designated terrorist group, in the 2000s and was later convicted of aiding the organization. Another appointee, Shyak Hamza Yusf, has been described as a radical Islamist preacher who was previously under investigation by Indian authorities for allegedly radicalizing terror recruits.

These appointments, coupled with Trump's seemingly favorable stance towards Pakistan, have sparked concerns about his motivations and potential conflicts of interest. Some analysts suggest that Pakistan is trying to "buy" Trump's favor through business deals and investments, while others argue that Trump's actions are driven solely by personal financial gain.

From India's perspective, Trump's claims and actions are problematic for several reasons. First, they undermine India's long-standing policy of resolving disputes with Pakistan bilaterally, without third-party mediation. Second, they risk equating India and Pakistan, despite India's insistence that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism. Finally, they raise questions about the reliability of the U.S. as a strategic partner, particularly given delays in the delivery of military equipment to India and the U.S.'s decision to greenlight an IMF bailout for Pakistan during the recent conflict.

While the situation remains fluid, it is clear that Trump's recent statements and actions have introduced a new layer of complexity to the already fraught relationship between India, Pakistan, and the United States.