Amid tense truce, reset in ties between India and Pakistan remains a distant prospect

NEW DELHI – India and Pakistan’s prompt acceptance of

a ceasefire brokered by the US

on May 10 proves that neither country wanted to go to war.

But with red lines crossed in rapid tit-for-tat military and drone strikes in the three preceding days as each attacked the other’s cities and defence installations, keeping tensions under check would continue to be a challenge, analysts say. 

“Ties are the worst in quite some time,” said Dr Manoj Joshi, a distinguished fellow at Delhi-based think-tank Observer Research Foundation.

Relations between India and Pakistan have been in stasis even before this recent outbreak of hostilities, with diplomatic dialogue suspended over the past few years.

But the militaries have been in communication. The Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) held talks on May 12 to further firm up the ceasefire. 

India accused Pakistan of having a hand in an April 22 terror attack in scenic Pahalgam in Indian-held Kashmir. Seen as one of the worst terror attacks targeted at civilians in recent years, it left one Nepali and 25 Indian tourists dead. 

While the Indian government previously undertook limited cross-border strikes in 2016 and 2019 following terrorist attacks, this time it went deeper into Pakistan, hitting nine “terror infrastructure” targets on May 7.

Pakistan, which denied playing a role in the April terror attack, responded to what its prime minister condemned as an “act of war” with artillery fire across the border into Indian-controlled Kashmir.

India said Pakistan had sent waves of drones into Indian states bordering Pakistan.

The ensuing salvos between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours saw both sides scramble jets, submarines and warships in an escalation not seen in recent memory.

While both sides have stepped back from “a pretty dangerous escalatory situation”, noted Mr T.C.A. Raghavan, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan and Singapore, the crisis advanced much further this time than it had in the past after a major terrorist attack.

“We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war, millions of people could have been killed. So I’m very proud of that,” US President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House.

And the fear is that future clashes could be even more intense.

Will the twain ever meet?

Despite multiple violations shortly after the ceasefire was announced on May 10 at 5pm India time, both sides have largely abided by the agreement.

Islamabad immediately urged dialogue at the highest levels. Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in an address to the nation on May 10, further expressed hope for “dialogue on crucial issues such as water sharing and Jammu and Kashmir”.

But India signalled that a diplomatic reset is not on the cards.

“India has consistently maintained a firm and uncompromising stance against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It will continue to do so,” External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said on X, after the US ceasefire announcement.

Kashmir, which is divided between India and Pakistan but claimed in entirety by both, has been at the heart of tensions between the two countries for decades, resulting in two wars and a limited conflict over the region.

India has accused Pakistan of sponsoring terror groups that attack India and its security forces in Kashmir with the aim of gaining control over the region. Pakistan has denied the allegations, but remains accused of providing a safe haven for these terror groups. 

Amid continuing domestic anger and demand for strong punitive action against Pakistan, India has shown no sign of rescinding the economic and diplomatic steps it took in the wake of the Pahalgam attack.

The only land crossing between the two countries remains shut and a six-decade-old water treaty that survived wars remains suspended, while trade and people-to-people links remain suspended.

New Delhi said on May 8 it wants to renegotiate the Indus Water Treaty, which governs the sharing of waters of six cross-border rivers. Negotiated back in 1960 when water flow and demands for water were different, New Delhi claims the agreement is now outdated.

Millions of people in Pakistan depend on the water of the rivers under the treaty for agriculture and hydropower. 

“There was a long hiatus in India-Pakistan relations which began in 2019. The Indus Water Treaty being placed in abeyance is the latest and most important aspect of a long pause,” said Mr Raghavan, the former Indian diplomat.

“I don’t see that (pause) changing that quickly. Some more confidence-building measures will be required before that can be done,” he added.

Dr Qamar Cheema, executive director of Sanober Institute, an Islamabad-based think-tank, said there is a high risk of armed conflict ratcheting back up going forward if there is no diplomatic dialogue.

“The most important thing is that there should be a ceasefire at the Line of Control (the de facto border) as well. Otherwise, any escalation can be possible,” he said.

Dr Cheema, however, noted it is difficult for India and Pakistan to overcome their mutual lack of trust, given that it had to take a third party to intervene in the first place.

‘Strictly between us’

US President Donald Trump on May 10 announced the “full and immediate ceasefire” between India and Pakistan “after a long night of talks mediated by the United States”.

“Additionally, I will work with you both to see if, after a ‘thousand years’, a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir. God Bless the leadership of India and Pakistan on a job well done!!!” Mr Trump posted on Truth Social on May 11.

India, with its longstanding opposition to foreign mediation regarding Kashmir, is unlikely to agree.

It already rejected Mr Trump’s first offer of the same in 2019, during his first term as US President. The US President then said it was up to India and Pakistan to work it out, but he “would certainly intervene” if they wanted him to.

At this point, New Delhi has not publicly acknowledged the US’ role in helping negotiate the ceasefire, with an eye on the domestic optics.

Analysts say Prime Minister Narendra Modi is mindful of satiating nationalist hawks who deem India capable of solving its own problems and taking a strong stance against terrorism – an expectation fanned by his administration’s expressed willingness to take the risk of cross-border strikes.  

Some hardliners in India are in fact disappointed that the nation agreed to the US-brokered ceasefire instead of continuing with strong action.

“There is no justification for ceasefire,” tweeted Mr Shakti Singh, who is with the youth wing of the BJP in charge of West Bengal state, underlining that the root cause of terrorism had not yet been addressed.

Terror groups targeting India such as the Lashkar e Taiba, which is on the US sanctions list, continue to operate in Pakistan.

On May 12, Mr Trump said trade was a “big reason” why India and Pakistan agreed to the ceasefire. The US has threatened to impose a litany of tariffs on even its closest allies. Many countries, including India – and soon, Pakistan – are in negotiations with Washington to minimise the levies.

In a nationwide broadcast on May 12, however, PM Modi said trade and terror cannot go together.

“We have only paused our military action against Pakistan,” Mr Modi said. “If we talk to Pakistan, it will be about Pakistani Kashmir (and)...terrorism.”

Among those seeking tough action against Pakistan are Hindu nationalists, who form a core support group for Mr Modi and have sought strong action against Muslim-majority Pakistan. Some have taken exception to the decision to agree to a ceasefire, even trolling India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri for merely announcing the de-escalation from India’s sides at a press conference.

“This government has said they will not deal with Pakistan so many times. So how will they go forward?”, wondered Dr Amit Ranjan, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Institute of South Asian Studies.

“How are people going to accept dialogue with Pakistan? There may be pressure from the section of people in India who are in favour of war if India and Pakistan resume diplomatic dialogue.”