The sudden announcement of a full and immediate ceasefire between India and Pakistan on May 10 brought a porous and volatile line of control into sharp focus. Triggered by recent escalations, including the controversial Pahalgam attack and India’s subsequent launch of “Operation Sindoor”, tensions had reached the boiling point leading to the first-ever direct military confrontation between Pakistan and India since the 2019 Phulwama episode. Yet in a rare and measured display of restraint, both countries chose to end military engagements, offering a momentary reprieve in an otherwise volatile conflictual landscape.
While ceasefires and agreements between these two countries are not new, their inherently fragile nature and historical hostilities, shaped by decades of distrust from 1947, demand a deeper analysis to answer rising questions of whether this latest development marks a genuine step towards lasting peace or merely a strategic pause serving immediate interests. This modern-day standoff between two nuclear powers offers a few insightful lessons for the rest of the world. A comprehensive understanding of the political, military, and humanitarian aspects of the conflict is very important for those who prioritize war hysteria over peacebuilding and constructive relationships.
The Pahalgam attack once again exacerbated the already fraught relationships between Pakistan and India, with New Delhi hastily leveling allegations against Pakistan without any concrete evidence. Islamabad categorically refuted India’s claim, emphasizing that it neither supports terrorism nor bears any responsibility for any terror attack in illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Instead, Pakistan called for a verifiable, concrete, transparent, and accountable investigation. Such incidents have historically initiated bilateral tensions, creating public outrage, paranoia, and a surge in war rhetoric, ultimately leading to a direct strong military confrontation. Pakistan denounced any Indian claim as unsubstantiated and politically dramatized fabrications, inherently crafted to manipulate international perceptions and galvanize domestic sentiments.
There have been multiple ceasefire agreements between New Delhi and Islamabad, aimed at curtailing hostilities. Yet, none have succeeded in dismantling the entrenched animosity that the Indo-Pak conflict is based on. However, these accords have intermittently prevented large-scale wars between Pakistan and India, and these have been persistently undermined by small-scale escalating events. Such as “The Karachi Agreement” of 1949, delineated a boundary line between Pakistan and India. However, this ceasefire failed to establish a lasting agreement between two hostile countries, ultimately giving way to the Kargil War in 1999, a stark reminder of the volatility embedded in the frequently failed bilateral agreements. During those years, tensions persisted characterized by constant artillery and small-arms exchanges. It was not until the 2003 Ceasefire Agreement that both nations pledged to end hostilities and to end military confrontations across the LOC and other contested areas around the LOC, including the highly sensitive and strategically important area of Siachen Glacier.
These ceasefires have, at their best, served as an immediate tool to halt military tensions, rather than serving as a long-term mechanism to create long-lasting peace and substantiative paths towards mutual understanding for the betterment of the region. To attain mutual benefit, both Pakistan and India must move beyond the short-term truces and agreements and must accept the fact that constructive relationships between the two countries can create sustainable peace and development in the region. Sustainable peace demands more than intermittent pauses in hostility; it requires the addressing of foundational elements that trigger the conflict from long ago.
Moreover, it requires unwavering political will, institutionalized dialogue, and the commitment to addressing the historical grievances that persistently fuel the conflict. Given their shared history, cultural ties, and geographical interdependence, a genuine and true transformation of conflict can only be possible through inclusive engagement between Pakistan and India such as people-to-people exchanges through the revival of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and the establishment of civil society platforms to engage in face-to-face dialogues to foster mutual trust and understanding of the consequences of hostilities.
Both Islamabad and New Delhi received offers for mediation amid tensions from key regional and global leaders including Turkey, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and US President Donald Trump, all of whom played a significant role in the end of this panic conflict between Pakistan and India. Ultimately, both Pakistan and India engaged in diplomatic efforts mediated by US President Donald Trump, whose announcement of the ceasefire marked a historic turning point in the modern-day warfare between two nuclear states. Donald Trump congratulated both countries for using common sense and great intelligence to save the region and world from large-scale nuclear war. The true value of a ceasefire will be measured by the willingness of both countries to convert this temporary calm into long-standing peace and development for regional peace and security.
While previous ceasefires have often served as temporary cooling-off periods, the 2025 ceasefire emerges against the backdrop of a particularly charged strategic operation. India’s launch of “Operation Sindoor” in response to Pahalgam was not merely a military response but a calculated political manoeuvre and strategic move, demonstrating a hardline stance against cross-border terrorism in the context of its domestic elections.
Pakistan categorically rejected India’s allegations without concrete evidence, with the Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations of Pakistan (DG ISPR) Lt Gen Ahmad Sharif calling it a theatrical and fabricated narrative. Beyond the immediate ceasefire, the global reach and broader geopolitical calculus of India cannot be ignored. India’s long-standing ambition to achieve regional hegemony over China is always complicated by Pakistan’s strategic location and close ties with China, creating a resistance that undermines India’s hegemonic ambitions. Engaging Pakistan in a prolonged conflict would serve as a strategic tool to distract or undermine China’s growing position as a global power.
Moreover, peace must be the foremost priority of conflicting parties, restraining maximum to avoid human loss, especially when all roads ultimately lead to the mediation/negotiation table. In fact, state function will return to normalcy, the irreversible human cost of the conflict remains there. Lives lost in any combat cannot be restored or called back, and psychological scars born out of that conflict linger long after the last bullet is fired. Both India and Pakistan have suffered significant loss in all dimensions including economy, military, political, and regionally.
Repeatedly history tells us, war gives nothing but devastation manifested in the form of death, panic, and trauma. Nowhere is this suffering more pronounced than in the contested regions of Jammu and Kashmir, where communities have tolerated inhumane actions including generational hardships, insecurity, and loss of Kashmiri people. A sustainable peace must begin with addressing the grievances of these Kashmiri people.
Both Islamabad and New Delhi received offers for mediation amid tensions from key regional and global leaders including Turkey, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and US President Donald Trump, all of whom played a significant role in the end of this panic conflict between Pakistan and India. Ultimately, both Pakistan and India engaged in diplomatic efforts mediated by US President Donald Trump, whose announcement of the ceasefire marked a historic turning point in the modern-day warfare between two nuclear states. Donald Trump congratulated both countries for using common sense and great intelligence to save the region and world from large-scale nuclear war. The true value of a ceasefire will be measured by the willingness of both countries to convert this temporary calm into long-standing peace and development for regional peace and security.
Recommendations
- After an immediate ceasefire both the conflicting parties must initiate peace-building efforts to establish long-lasting and peaceful societal relations.
- India should exercise restraint in issuing such false allegations without concrete evidence because claims often work as catalysts to fuel already fraught relations and tensions.
- The establishment of an impartial international investigative forum is essential to examine incidents taking place in illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This body/forum should work impartially, transparently, and with accountability.
- Freedom of expression must be guaranteed to every citizen in illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir. International media, civil society organizations, and the local population should be allowed to express their views internationally, followed by free reporting, free speaking, and accurate journalism to ensure that realities on the ground are not silenced through baseless allegations.
