Beyond The Ceasefire: India, Pakistan, And The Elusive Path To Peace – Analysis
The ceasefire between India and Pakistan, apparently brokered by the United States after several days of escalating conflict, has offered the subcontinent a temporary reprieve from what could have become a full-scale war.
The hostilities were triggered by the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians. This act of terror reopened deep setback in India-Pakistan relations and revived the spectre of cross-border violence and military retaliation – this time with dangerous new dimensions. What followed was not only a sharp exchange of military strikes but also an alarming demonstration of how rapidly South Asia could descend into a nuclear flashpoint. Though the ceasefire offers momentary relief, it does little to address the fundamental causes of conflict. The question remains: have both sides achieved their objectives, or merely deferred the next crisis?
Retaliation, Escalation, and U.S. Mediation
India’s response to the Pahalgam attack was swift and severe. It launched precision missile strikes on nine locations inside Pakistan, targeting terror bases belonging to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, particularly in Muridke and Bahawalpur. These were not symbolic gestures but a clear strategic statement, indicating a doctrinal shift in India’s approach to terrorism: any future attack would be treated as an act of war. Pakistan retaliated with three waves of drone and missile attacks over the following days, targeting Indian military and civilian installations. The Indian Air Force and Navy responded with counterstrikes, destroying Pakistani radar installations and causing what defence officials later described as “extensive and precise damage” to Pakistan’s air defences. Radar sites in Sialkot and Pasrur were among the key assets neutralized.
Amid mounting global alarm, a sudden diplomatic breakthrough was announced. U.S. President Donald Trump declared on his social media platform that both India and Pakistan had agreed to a “full and immediate ceasefire,” following 48 hours of intensive negotiations led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice-President JD Vance. This came just a day after Vance had claimed the conflict was “none of America’s business”—a rapid reversal that exposed the urgency with which the United States chose to intervene once it became clear that the region was edging dangerously close to nuclear escalation.
Rubio confirmed that high-level talks had taken place with Indian and Pakistani leadership, including Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, and National Security Advisors Ajit Doval and Asim Malik. Both sides agreed to cease all military operations across land, air, and sea. They are expected to resume discussions on May 12 to address underlying issues. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar acknowledged the ceasefire, while India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri emphasized that the ceasefire does not signal any change in India’s firm position on terrorism or the diplomatic actions it has taken since April 22.
India’s Strategic Shift and Pakistan’s Fragility
India’s response to the Pahalgam attack went beyond military operations. In a dramatic move, New Delhi suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, a pact long considered a rare success in the otherwise conflict-ridden bilateral relationship. India began diverting water from the Chenab River by increasing reservoir storage at key hydroelectric projects like Salal and Baglihar, and signalled plans to fast-track six other stalled hydroelectric projects in Jammu and Kashmir. Though these actions remain within the technical boundaries of the treaty, their political message was clear: India is prepared to leverage every tool at its disposal, including water, as a strategic weapon.
In addition, India halted bilateral trade, issued travel advisories, and engaged in a broader diplomatic campaign to isolate Pakistan. It reportedly requested the Asian Development Bank to halt project funding to Pakistan, and several global airlines began avoiding Pakistani airspace. These actions reflect not only a punitive posture but a deeper strategic recalibration, one that is no longer reliant on global sympathy but rooted in assertive regional leadership. Indian defence officials underlined that India’s responses were both lawful and restrained, targeting only military assets and steering clear of civilian or religious sites. They also warned that any future misadventure by Pakistan would be met with a decisive and disproportionate response.
Meanwhile, Pakistan was facing severe internal challenges that constrained its ability to prolong the conflict. Economic collapse, domestic unrest, especially in Balochistan, and growing diplomatic isolation pushed Islamabad toward de-escalation. Unlike in previous wars, Pakistan found few allies ready to support its cause. Its dependence on U.S. support for securing the next IMF loan also weighed heavily on its decision to seek a ceasefire. The sudden shift in American posture – from non-intervention to direct mediation – must be seen in the context of Washington’s interest in preventing another nuclear crisis in South Asia, especially when Pakistan’s internal coherence appears increasingly fragile.
Ceasefire or Tactical Pause?
While the ceasefire brought a halt to overt hostilities, it is far from a peace agreement. Indian officials were quick to clarify that the ceasefire was purely military in nature and does not reverse any of the punitive measures already imposed. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty will continue, as will India’s policy of diplomatic pressure. Moreover, India’s updated war doctrine, now publicly acknowledged by the U.S., states that any future terror attack originating from Pakistani soil will be treated as an act of war. This places the onus squarely on Pakistan to dismantle the terror infrastructure operating within its borders.
Analysts warn that the situation remains volatile. The nuclear overhang has not disappeared. India adheres to a “No First Use” policy, but Pakistan’s ambiguous nuclear posture and frequent signalling heighten the risk of miscalculation. Missile tests by Pakistan during the conflict, even if framed as routine, only added to international concern. A single misstep, a rogue actor, or a misread radar could bring the region to catastrophe.
In this context, the ceasefire is better seen as a tactical pause than a turning point. History shows that such pauses are often short-lived unless backed by sustained diplomacy, mutual restraint, and an honest engagement with core grievances.
The Path to Peace and the Limits of Bilateralism
The deeper conflict between India and Pakistan is not just military – it is ideological, political, and psychological. At its core lies Pakistan’s refusal to accept the legal and constitutional merger of Jammu and Kashmir with India. For decades, Pakistan’s military and political elite have perpetuated a narrative of grievance, using Kashmir as a rallying point to distract from internal dysfunctions – from the insurgency in Balochistan to administrative failures in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Meanwhile, the “Kashmir cause” has become both a political crutch and a geopolitical liability.
Experts argue that bilateral diplomacy has failed time and again. Agreements such as the Shimla Accord and the Lahore Declaration have not survived political expediency and military adventurism. In contrast, third-party mediation, such as the World Bank-brokered Indus Waters Treaty and the British-assisted Rann of Kutch resolution, Soviet mediated Tashkent Declaration, offer viable models for structured and enforceable peace processes. While India remains cautious about foreign mediation due to sovereignty concerns, the urgency of the situation demands creative diplomacy, perhaps through back-channel dialogue or facilitation by neutral actors.
Within India, too, the strategy must go beyond security-centric responses. The alienation in Kashmir must be addressed through political engagement, economic opportunity, and respect for civil liberties. As studies have shown, many militants are driven less by ideology than by hopelessness and humiliation. A democratic India must not lose sight of this dimension, even as it deals firmly with terrorism.
In sum, the May 2025 ceasefire between India and Pakistan is a necessary, but insufficient, step toward real peace. It was born not out of goodwill, but out of compulsion. India’s strategic response and Pakistan’s internal fragility converged to halt the fighting. The challenge now is to convert this tactical pause into a strategic breakthrough. Pakistan must commit to ending its support for terrorism. India must balance strength with statesmanship. And the international community must remain engaged, not only to prevent conflict but to foster a durable framework for peace.
For South Asia, the stakes are high. Peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the presence of justice, dignity, and dialogue. The time to build that peace is now.