India-Pakistan Ceasefire: Fragile Peace After 4 Days of Most Intense Fighting in Decades

The Path to Ceasefire: How India and Pakistan Stepped Back from the Brink

The most intense fighting between India and Pakistan in decades came to an abrupt halt on May 10, 2025, when both nuclear-armed neighbors agreed to a ceasefire after four days of escalating conflict. What began with Indian strikes against alleged terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-administered Kashmir following an April 22 attack that killed 26 Hindu tourists in Indian Kashmir quickly spiraled into a dangerous military confrontation involving fighter jets, missiles, and explosive-laden drones.

The ceasefire, announced at 5:00 p.m. Indian Standard Time (11:30 GMT), came after intense diplomatic efforts, with the United States playing a significant role in facilitating discussions between the two longtime adversaries. US President Donald Trump was quick to claim credit for brokering the agreement, stating on his Truth Social platform: After a lengthy night of discussions facilitated by the United States, I am delighted to announce that India and Pakistan agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire.

Despite initial reports of violations in the hours following the announcement, with both sides accusing each other of breaching the truce, the ceasefire has largely held in the days since. Military officials from both nations met on Monday, May 12, to discuss extending the agreement and have committed to taking immediate steps to reduce troop presence along their shared borders.

The Trigger: Pahalgam Attack and Operation Sindoor

The recent hostilities can be traced back to April 22, 2025, when militants attacked Hindu tourists in Pahalgam, located in Indian-administered Kashmir, killing 26 civilians. India promptly blamed Pakistan for supporting the terrorists responsible for the attack, an accusation that Pakistan vehemently denied.

In response to the Pahalgam attack, India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, conducting missile strikes against what it described as terrorist camps and infrastructure belonging to militant groups Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India maintained that no Pakistani military facilities were targeted during these initial strikes, while Pakistan claimed that the Indian strikes hit civilian areas, including mosques.

The situation rapidly deteriorated as border skirmishes and drone strikes escalated between the two countries. By May 10, Pakistan had launched its retaliatory operation, codenamed Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos, targeting several Indian military bases. India claimed that Pakistan's strikes targeted civilian areas, including Hindu religious sites, and responded by expanding Operation Sindoor to include Pakistani military installations.

This marked the first drone battle between the two nuclear-armed nations and represented the most serious military confrontation since their 1999 Kargil conflict.

US Intervention and International Pressure

As the conflict intensified, the international community grew increasingly concerned about the possibility of further escalation between the two nuclear powers. The United States, in particular, took an active role in mediating the crisis.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance engaged in extensive communications with high-ranking officials from both countries over a 48-hour period. Rubio spoke directly with Pakistan's Army chief Asim Munir, national security adviser Asim Malik, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, while Vance was in contact with Indian authorities, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Other nations also contributed to the diplomatic efforts, with Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar stating that 36 countries helped broker the truce. Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif specifically acknowledged the pivotal roles played by representatives from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UK, UN, and China in facilitating the agreement.

The international pressure for de-escalation came at a critical moment, as Pakistan had announced that a key body overseeing its nuclear capabilities would convene, raising momentary concerns about potential nuclear involvement. However, Pakistan's defense minister later clarified that no such meeting was planned.

Conflicting Narratives on the Ceasefire

While both India and Pakistan confirmed the ceasefire agreement, their narratives regarding its negotiation differ significantly. Pakistan emphasized the role of international mediation, with Foreign Minister Dar highlighting the involvement of 36 countries in brokering the truce. US Secretary of State Rubio stated that both nations had agreed not only to a ceasefire but also to begin discussions on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.

In contrast, Indian officials maintained that the ceasefire was negotiated bilaterally, with one official telling Agence France Presse that the stoppage of firing and military action between India and Pakistan was worked out directly between the two countries. India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting partially refuted US claims about broader talks, stating: There is no agreement to engage in discussions on any other matters at any other location.

These conflicting accounts reflect the complex dynamics at play and the different domestic narratives each country seeks to maintain. For India, emphasizing bilateral negotiations aligns with its long-standing position against third-party mediation in its disputes with Pakistan, while Pakistan benefits from highlighting international involvement to demonstrate global concern about the conflict.

Strategic Shifts and Changing Rules of Engagement

The recent conflict and subsequent ceasefire represent significant strategic shifts in the India-Pakistan relationship. Since 2014, India has moved to dismantle the framework that previously allowed Pakistan to exploit nuclear deterrence while supporting cross-border terrorism. This shift has included crossing the Line of Control after the Uri attack in 2016, striking deep into Pakistan during the Balakot operation in 2019, revoking Jammu and Kashmir's special status, and now attacking alleged terror camps in West Punjab in 2025.

India has also taken unprecedented punitive measures, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, a vital water-sharing agreement that has survived previous conflicts since its signing in 1960. These actions signal a new Indian posture: a willingness to hit core areas of Pakistan if provoked by terrorist attacks.

As Walter Ladwig, an analyst quoted in media reports, noted: India has significantly altered the rules of engagement in this episode. The Indian government appears to have entirely abandoned the approach that permitted Islamabad and Rawalpindi to maintain plausible deniability regarding anti-Indian terrorist groups.

This strategic shift suggests that any future talks between the two countries may include demands to renegotiate the Indus treaty and revise the engagement framework established during what India considers its weaker position in the 1990s.

Economic and Civilian Impact

The brief but intense conflict had immediate economic and civilian impacts on both sides of the border. Tens of thousands of people were displaced from border areas, and both countries implemented blackouts in cities near the conflict zone. Commercial flights were suspended, and airspace was restricted during the hostilities.

Following the ceasefire announcement, there were signs of returning normalcy. Pakistan reopened its airspace to commercial flights, and India declared the resumption of civilian flights at more than 30 airports in the northern region. On the first trading day after the ceasefire announcement, stock markets in both nations experienced significant gains, reflecting investor confidence that the agreement would hold.

However, the punitive economic measures implemented by both sides remain in place for now. According to Indian government sources, actions taken by India, mirrored by Pakistan, including trade suspensions and visa cancellations, would remain unchanged for the time being. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty also continues, with potential long-term implications for water security in the region.

The Future of India-Pakistan Relations

While the ceasefire has temporarily halted hostilities, the fundamental issues that have long plagued India-Pakistan relations remain unresolved. The conflict over Kashmir continues to be a central point of contention, with both countries claiming the territory in its entirety while controlling only portions of it.

The sustainability of the current ceasefire will likely depend on several factors, including Pakistan's approach to militant groups operating from its territory and India's willingness to engage in dialogue. As Indian Prime Minister Modi stated on Monday, the fighting had merely paused, suggesting that India does not view the ceasefire as a permanent resolution.

However, some analysts believe the ceasefire could endure. As one expert from the Stimson Center noted: Both sides face constraints and opportunities that have emerged over the course of the last week which, together, make the ceasefire a favorable outcome for both.

For lasting peace, ongoing dialogue will be crucial. Security concerns in both Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan's Balochistan province will need to be addressed, as each country accuses the other of supporting separatist movements across their shared border.

Lessons from the 2025 Conflict

The brief but intense India-Pakistan conflict of May 2025 offers several important lessons for regional and global security. First, it demonstrates the continued volatility of South Asia and the ever-present risk of escalation between nuclear-armed neighbors with deep historical animosities.

Second, it highlights the evolving nature of modern warfare, with drones playing a significant role alongside traditional military assets. This conflict marked the first drone battle between India and Pakistan, showcasing how military technology continues to shape the character of regional conflicts.

Third, the crisis underscores the importance of international diplomatic intervention in preventing further escalation. While India may prefer bilateral solutions, the involvement of the United States and other nations proved crucial in facilitating the ceasefire before the situation spiraled further out of control.

Finally, the conflict reveals the complex interplay between domestic politics and international relations. Both governments faced pressure from nationalist constituencies at home while simultaneously navigating the realities of international diplomacy and the risks of nuclear escalation.

As the ceasefire holds and military officials continue their discussions, the world watches closely to see whether this pause in hostilities will lead to more substantive dialogue or merely represent a temporary respite in the long-standing rivalry between these South Asian powers.