Donald Trump hosts General Asim Munir for White House lunch, credits him for ending India-Pakistan war; here's what we know

US President Donald Trump hosted Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, for a private luncheon at the White House on Wednesday. The meeting, held in the Cabinet Room, was a rare occasion where the powerful military chief was invited without accompanying senior civilian officials from Pakistan.
Donald Trump | Credit: X
President Trump used the opportunity to express his appreciation for Munir's role in helping avoid a further escalation between India and Pakistan following a recent military standoff.
Trump acknowledges Munir's role in de-escalating India-Pakistan tensions
Addressing reporters, President Trump said, 'Reason I had him here was I wanted to thank him for not going into the war and ending it.' He added that both General Munir and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi showed restraint, avoiding what he called a potentially nuclear conflict.
'Two very smart people decided not to keep going with that war; that could have been a nuclear war,' Trump said, referring to the military conflict that ended on May 10 after four days of cross-border drone and missile exchanges.
Discussions included Iran and regional stability
President Trump noted that Iran was also a subject of discussion during the lunch. 'They (Pakistani leadership) know Iran very well, better than most,' he said, acknowledging Islamabad's long-standing ties with Tehran. 'They're not happy about anything. It's not that they're bad with Israel. They know them both actually... but they see what's going on and he agreed with me,' Trump told reporters.
Pakistan has openly condemned Israel's airstrikes on Iran, calling them violations of international law and a threat to regional peace.
General Munir was accompanied by the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI chief Lt Gen Asim Malik, during the meeting.
Trump, Modi discuss Operation Sindoor and trade
President Trump also revealed that he had spoken to Prime Minister Modi on the same day. The Indian Prime Minister held a 35-minute conversation with Trump, during which they primarily discussed Operation Sindoor, India's military response to the April Pahalgam terror attack.
However, Modi reportedly clarified that topics such as the India-US trade deal or any form of US mediation in India-Pakistan affairs were not part of their conversation.
White House notes Nobel nomination request from Munir
Earlier in the day, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said General Munir had called for President Trump to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. The recommendation came after the US President's role in preventing what could have been a nuclear war between India and Pakistan last month.
Trump commented on the recognition, saying, 'Well, I stopped a war… I love Pakistan. I think Modi is a fantastic man. I spoke to him last night. We're going to make a trade deal with Modi of India.'
The White House meeting underscored both rising tensions and careful diplomacy in South Asia, with Trump positioning himself as a key intermediary.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

34 minutes ago

• Time of India

‘Diplomatic intervention': Pakistan nominates Donald Trump for 2026 Nobel Peace Prize; cites role in India-Pakistan crisis

Donakd Trump Pakistan has nominated US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize , crediting his "decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership" during the recent crisis between India and Pakistan. The announcement was made in a post on social media platform X, where Pakistani officials said Trump played a key role in defusing tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. The nomination follows comments made by Trump on Friday, in which he argued he deserved the prestigious award for multiple peace efforts, including his involvement in easing tensions between India and Pakistan. 'I should have gotten it four or five times,' the president said. 'They won't give me a Nobel Peace Prize because they only give it to liberals.' While the Indian government has rejected the idea that Trump played a role in the ceasefire, Trump insists he helped prevent a potential war. 'Well, I stopped a war... I love Pakistan. I think Modi is a fantastic man. I spoke to him last night. We're going to make a trade deal with Modi of India,' he told reporters earlier this week. 'But I stopped the war between Pakistan and India. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo This man was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistan side. Modi from the India side and others. They were going at it – and they're both nuclear countries. I got it stopped.' Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, has also secured a lunch meeting at the White House following his recommendation that US President Donald Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly confirmed the meeting will take place but did not provide a date. This is not the first time Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. In the past, loyal lawmakers and supporters have submitted his name for consideration. He has also repeatedly voiced frustration at being overlooked, referencing the 2009 win of former US President Barack Obama. Trump also announced on Truth Social that he had arranged a peace treaty between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. He said officials from both countries would travel to Washington on Monday to sign the agreement, although their joint statement listed the date as June 27. 'This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World!' Trump wrote. He also criticised the Nobel committee for not acknowledging his previous peace efforts in other regions. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia. .. No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do... but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' The peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda, reached during three days of negotiations in Washington, aims to end a decades-long conflict in eastern Congo. Trump has positioned himself as a global peacemaker, often highlighting his negotiation skills as a key approach to ending international conflicts. However, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine are ongoing, with no resolution reached more than five months into his presidency.

Hindustan Times

34 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Sam Dalrymple: 'The Northeast was probably the most affected by Partition'

This book is about the five partitions of the Indian Empire, which stretched from Aden in the west to Burma in the east to now 12 nations in three geographic regions. At the time, you write, even Britain downplayed its size. Nepal and Oman were never officially recognized. Arab states bordering the Ottoman Empire and Himalayan states near Tibet were left off the maps. But these were all run by the Indian political service, defended by the Indian army, their currency was the Indian rupee. So how did the British manage to hide them? And what did the Indian Empire actually look like? Sam Dalrymple, author, Shattered Lands (Courtesy HarperCollins) So, for example, a 1909 map [Political Divisions of the Indian Empire by The Indian Gazetteer] shows Burma as British India, and Nepal and Bhutan as princely states — they're in yellow exactly like Jaipur and Hyderabad are — but hides Arabia. A 1909 map of Aden by The Indian Gazetteer recognizes much of southern Yemen as dominated by princely states. A rare Indian Empire map from 1930 includes Aden but not the Gulf states. The British were always quite reticent to talk about what they were doing in the Arabian states, partially because very few people actually lived there. These were the poorest states in the Raj. Oil hadn't been discovered yet, and so, largely, it was small settlements on the coast. The Brits were only involving themselves in the cities and making sure that the sheikhs were abiding by them. The person who integrated the sheikhs of the Gulf into the Indian empire was Lord Curzon. Lord Curzon went on a Durbar trip to Sharjah [in 1903] and invited the sheikhs and gave them all gun salutes, and created a Persian Gulf residency, on the model of the Hyderabad residency or the Jaipur residency. So, subsequently you had the list of princely states beginning alphabetically with Abu Dhabi. There's a map of the Arabian peninsula in the Gazetteer issued to Indian civil servants, and if you placed it beside the India maps, it gave you a full picture of the size of the Indian Empire from Aden to Rangoon. The public never got to see its full scale though. The Ottoman Empire officially claimed the Arabian peninsula and the British wanted to avoid aggravating Constantinople, so they always kept the Arabian Raj off official maps of India. Likewise, Britain's presence in Nepal and Bhutan — they didn't want to scare China or Tibet. But officially under the Interpretation Act of 1889, these were India. And everyone was eligible for an Indian passport... At the Round Table Conference on Burma in 1931, Burmese leaders were against separation from India. In Aden at the same time, some saw 'the connection with India as organic.' The city's many Gujarati and Parsi residents thought Aden 'was an integral part of the Indian nation'. In the 1940s, the Nawab of Bhopal wanted the princely states to, instead of acceding to India or Pakistan, be unified as a third dominion called 'Rajastan'. The Nagas wanted a separate Christian state under the Commonwealth nation. Kalat [in present-day Balochistan], then the third largest princely state in the Raj, wanted to be independent. What were, at the time, considered the most plausible partitions? I think what's remarkable is how late the idea of independence comes up. It took them until 1929 to ask for it. What they'd all been asking for until then is for the interconnectivity of the empire to remain but for equal opportunity within the empire. The model was the Roman Empire, which, around 200 AD, became completely racially equal — so Philip the Arab could become the Roman emperor and then you've got people from Tunisia or Egypt or Syria or France suddenly ruling the Roman Empire. So, for early nationalists, it would have included everything from Aden to Burma as one giant country probably governed along a system like the United States of America, which was another country that had gained independence from Britain in the past. Once it became clear that independence was happening, you had hundreds of different ideas of what different states could look like and virtually no one could have imagined what we actually got. Gandhi wanted independence for basically Bharatvarsha. He wanted to carve out a nation state that resembled Bharat of Mahabharata fame. We're so used to this idea of undivided India that we forget until as late as the 1920s, it had never been attempted before to have all of it ruled on one country. Even Ashoka and the Mughals had never ruled over the whole of the subcontinent. There had always been a bit of Tamil Nadu or a bit of Kerala that had been independent. Or it had included Afghanistan as well or something. There were various other ideas of kind of uniting all the Muslim areas. There were ideas of Burmese nationalists. There was a very early idea of a Dravidian state that has Hindustan and India as two separate bits. The idea that we grow up with in Delhi schools is the idea that Gandhi had of this eternal Bharat. The fact that there were hundreds of other visions or just near misses is forgotten. 536pp, ₹799; HarperCollins Did Gandhi set the tone for what India now looks like? It wasn't him specifically. The idea that set it up was in the wake of the 1905 Partition of Bengal. You suddenly had nationalists producing images of Bharat Mata, and the Congress latched on to it. But the depiction of independent India as Bharat Mata alienated the Burmese and the Arabs. These partitions occurred within the last hundred years and still exist in living memory. The 'Long March' of about 600,000 Indian refugees from Burma, 80,000 of whom die... How well are these stories documented — and were they hard to access? The origin story of this book was from a conversation with someone in Tripura who I was asking about Partition for our Project Dastaan [an initiative co-founded by Dalrymple in 2018 to reconnect people displaced by Partition]. And they said 'Which partition? ... Because there was the 1937 one from Burma, 1947 from India. And then Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971 and we got another influx for refugees.' And I, having studied Partition for three years, had never considered that. Each of these 12 countries has brushed over its past. Unlike Partition where lots of people are still alive, the 'Long March' was six years earlier so we've lost six more years and it's very late to get these stories out. I've only got a couple of people who I was able to interview in person. A Sikh family from north London — of the character Uttam Singh from the book, his grandkids — had reached out to me on Instagram and said they had a Partition story. I told them about what I was doing with the book and they said 'Oh, we were in Punjab for Partition, but actually before 1941 we were all in Burma.' And then they opened this trunk and they had an untranslated diary, photographs, and everything. I think that the key one though is Yemen — it lost most of its papers in the communist takeover of South Yemen. Many of the archives there were burnt. And all of these Arab states have been very harsh with their citizenship laws — about who gets to be Kuwaiti or from Dubai... and they don't particularly want to run over this history, especially in the present day. But the big story there got discovered by professor James Onley, who was the director of research at the Qatar National Library. He was commissioned by the sheikh of Qatar, who wanted to create a Qatari digital library, to find documents relating to Qatari history. And there was nothing in Qatar on what its life was before the 1950s and '60s. He eventually stumbled upon the fact that everything is sitting in the Bombay archives. It's not in London, it's not in Qatar, it's all in Bombay. He wrote a big book that's a classic called The Arabian Frontier of the British Raj (2007). You've used a lot of personal correspondences and diaries for your research — starting from letters written by John Simon [of the Simon Commission] to his mother describing his travels, or the ones between Sarojini Naidu and her daughter Padmaja, Asha Sahay who was a foot soldier of the INA, Uttam Singh... Tell me more about finding private papers and working with such personal research material. There were some particularly interesting ones. Two of the wildest interviews and private papers I had was Ghalib Al-Qu'aiti, the Yemeni Sultan, who's descended from the Nizam of Hyderabad. I ended up meeting him and he's living stateless in Jeddah; he's not allowed to leave the country and the Brits are refusing to give him a passport. He'd attempted to write his own autobiography but never got it published... he had all these letters and private papers that no one's really ever used before. The other one was Feroz Khan Noon, the seventh prime minister of Pakistan, who was removed when martial law was first imposed in 1957. His family live in Lahore and the family archives just haven't been utilized. And then the other one was actually my godmother Brigid Keenan who, as a young girl saw the last Brits disappearing through the Gateway of India and whose father was in the PBF, the Punjab Boundary Force. He was an Irishman who is one of the few people who volunteers to try and keep the peace... and I found his letters, which were just sitting in a house in Somerset. What was your most surprising discovery? That the Persian Gulf remained a part of the Indian Empire till 1947. That one muddled me. And it was weirdly difficult to find any papers on — so much of it is online, but it's difficult to find anyone talking about it. The thing that we've got to remember is that the Gulf was the lowest ranking princely states in the Indian empire. Not even worthy of one gun salute, you write. They weren't invited! The Sultan of Oman is the exception, and Qu'aiti State, the guys in Eastern Yemen. Oman had 21 [gun salutes] Qu'aiti State had 10, and Dubai and Abu Dhabi had zero. They all were invited to go to Mayo College, etcetera as princes. I think that's going be the big surprise for Indian readers – the fact that there was a world where the united oil wealth of the entire Gulf could have gone to either India, or let's not forget, Pakistan. These were Muslim-majority states, they could have joined Pakistan instead and probably would have. Many cities, thriving centres of culture and trade, suffered tragic declines in this time. What were some of the biggest casualties? I don't think we should be nostalgic about the 1930s. Each of these countries has gained things and lost things. This was a time of high imperialism and very racially segmented societies that worked on the basis of exclusion. One of the places that's changed the most and suffered the most in this time would probably be Hyderabad, which was this centre of courtly wonder and baroque palaces. So much has been lost, so many great libraries, collections of art — Hyderabad should be the number one tourist destination in the country and would have been in the 1930s. Jaipur and Jodhpur and Udaipur and all the places we visit today were nothing compared to Hyderabad. Half of it was bulldozed, destroyed and ghettoized in the wake of the events of the 1940s. But I feel like it's a complicated legacy. This was also a place of great brutality, probably the most socially hierarchical place in the entire subcontinent with bonded labour ruining the lives of most the population. Today, through the lens of modern politics, we often look at it as a Hindu-Muslim thing with the Nizam as a Muslim, but I think if we look at it through the lens of class, we see that this was the site of, in the 1950s, South Asia's biggest communist movement and communist revolution. The Indian Army was still fighting communists in the Telangana countryside three years after it went into the place. Burma lost something immense. It was the most multicultural region in Asia, and today it's driven by ethnic factionalism, mass murder and civil war. But at the same time, Rangoon in the 1930s was also not necessarily a completely open place. It was driven heavily by class and race. Aden was a very diverse cosmopolitan place filled with traders from across the Indian ocean. It was one-third Indian, one-third Somali, one-third Arab, about ten percent Jews. Like Rangoon, it is the one that's fallen the most from one of the great ports of the world to a southern Yemeni city that's now riven by ethnic and religious civil war. The culture of Lahore is mourned immensely. But there were quite justifiable reasons many Muslims felt like they needed separation. Urvashi Butalia and Aanchal Malhotra have both talked a lot about this. People in Lahore who lived through Partition, who miss their friends, but also will tell you about how Hindus were never able to eat in the same room as their Muslim best friends. You write about the alliance between India and Pakistan after Partition. How did it come about and what went wrong? Of the two books that really discovered this, one is Pallavi Raghavan's Animosity at Bay (2019), which is an alternative history of the relationship of India and Pakistan. After the ceasefire in 1949 over Kashmir, both countries were quite happy to leave it to the UN and move on creating a new future, particularly in the wake of the Liaquat–Nehru Pact. And so Jinnah's tomb was built by an Indian Muslim. His daughter lived in Bombay her whole life without much issue. There were whole communities with half a family living on one side and the other half on the other side of the border. The other book is Avinash Paliwal's who was the first to used declassified intelligence files from the Northeast, and he's completely rewritten everything that we thought — because until that point, we'd been relying on memoirs and oral histories and news reports, often which got things wrong. Bizarrely, the thing that breaks apart the India-Pakistan relationship is India sending the army into Goa [in 1961] to annex it from the Portuguese. And that whilst everyone in India and half the world saw this as a final moment of decolonization, the Pakistani leadership, which had a year earlier put a military pact with India on the table, saw it as India suddenly muscling up its army, taking on European powers militarily, and essentially as a new Indian expansionism — that India would have this irredentist thing of trying to claim back lost territory. So the Pakistani leadership was terrified and started funding Naga separatists the same year. Within a year, India started funding the Pashtuns and Bengali separatists. And it became a tit for tat. But from 1949 to 1960, the whole of the 1950s, there was another way, many what-ifs that could have happened. And I think that more research really needs to be done to figure out the details of what went wrong. The 1965 war is actually the one that broke down the complete relationship: enemy property acts come in, all transport across the borders stopped, the beginning of a border wall is built up. How was the Northeast affected by Partition? The Northeast was probably the most affected by Partition. It's the reason that the Northeast is now a strange appendage on the right of India. Tripura was 20 kms from Chittagong, South Asia's largest port, and suddenly became landlocked by 2,000 kms in an area with no roads. The economy completely crumbled, and the indigenous population was overwhelmed by Bengalis flooding into the country. Half of the conflict, with the exception of Arunachal Pradesh, all of the others — the AFSPA agitation, the insurgencies in Tripura, Mizoram and Nagaland — have roots in Partition. Many of the ethnic conflicts in the Northeast — when you grow up in Delhi, at least — seemed so complicated. But the moment you think about how everything has to do with borders cutting through communities, and with regions being overwhelmed by new migrants, suddenly all of its politics became clear overnight. That fog lifted. Saudamini Jain is an independent journalist. She lives in New Delhi.

Hindustan Times

44 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Iran Israel war updates: Indians evacuated from Iran to land in Delhi today

Heavily damaged building of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) after it was hit a few days earlier in an Israeli strike, in Tehran. Iran and Israel exchanged a new wave of air strikes on Friday, marking the eighth consecutive day of hostilities between the neighbours. The conflict intensified even as European diplomats convened in Geneva in a fresh bid to revive nuclear negotiations and stem further escalation. Israeli fighter jets targeted missile infrastructure in western Iran, the military said, while Tehran launched salvos of missiles at Haifa and Beersheba. At least 19 Israelis were reported wounded, and Iran's Human Rights Activists News Agency estimated 657 deaths and over 2,000 injuries in Iran since the conflict began. ...Read More In Geneva, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held talks with EU foreign policy chief and ministers from the UK, France, and Germany. Araghchi said Iran would not engage with the US until Israel halts its attacks, but signaled willingness to continue talks with Europe. US President Donald Trump cast doubt on European mediation efforts, asserting that 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us.' Trump had on Friday warned Tehran that it has only two weeks to de-escalate or face potential American intervention. Latest developments in the Iran Israel war: Israel vows a 'prolonged campaign' to cripple Iran's nuclear capacity. Iran's foreign minister holds talks in Geneva, but rules out US dialogue for now. Israel says it struck missile and nuclear-related sites in Tehran and western Iran. Trump gives Iran two weeks to de-escalate or face possible US strikes. Iran reports 657 killed, including civilians, in Israeli airstrikes since the conflict began. Iran accuses Israel of bombing five hospitals in recent attacks. Haifa and Beersheba hit by Iranian missiles; 19 injured in Israel. Arab ministers warn of regional energy disruption, call for US pressure. Follow all the updates here: June 21, 2025 6:09 AM IST Iran Israel war live: Hundreds of American citizens have departed Iran using land routes over the past week since an aerial war between the Islamic Republic and Israel broke out, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters on Friday. While many left without problem, "numerous" citizens had faced "delays and harassment" while trying to exit, the cable said. It said, without giving further details, that one unidentified family had reported that two US citizens attempting to leave Iran had been detained. June 21, 2025 6:05 AM IST Iran Israel war live: The Israeli military launched a new wave of attacks targeting missile storage and launch infrastructure within Iran. Following the recent Iranian air strikes, Israeli authorities have now instructed residents that it is safe to leave protected areas, indicating that the immediate threat has passed.