In a significant development, India’s Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan came into effect on May 10 following direct talks between the two countries’ military leaderships. At 15:35 IST, Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) called his Indian counterpart. The two sides agreed to stop all military actions—on land, at sea, and in the air—starting at 17:00 IST the same day. Lt Gen Ghai affirmed the Indian Armed Forces have thus far exercised «immense restraint» and that “our actions have been focused, measured, and non-escalatory.
But just hours later, U.S. President Donald Trump made a sensational announcement on Truth Social, claiming that his team had successfully mediated the ceasefire. He described it as a “full and immediate ceasefire” and portrayed it as a diplomatic victory for the United States. Senator Marco Rubio followed up, stating that he and Vice President J.D. Vance had helped broker the deal in coordination with officials from both countries. The statement sparked a wave of commentary—supporters viewed it as Washington reasserting influence in a region where it had lost ground, while critics dismissed it as premature self-congratulation and an attempt to insert the U.S. into a process already being directly managed by India and Pakistan.
India and Pakistan have a long and troubled history—especially over Kashmir. The latest flare-up began with a terrorist attack in the Pahalgam area of Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians, including 25 Hindu tourists and their local guide. India attributed the attack to Pakistan-based militant groups namely Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM).
In response, on May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, carrying out airstrikes on terrorist infrastructure located in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). On the same day, Indian missiles struck nine sites in Pakistan, reportedly killing 31 people. New Delhi emphasized that the strikes were precise, avoiding civilian or military installations, and were solely aimed at eliminating terrorist camps. Pakistan retaliated with heavy shelling, which resulted in civilian casualties, and followed up with drone and missile attacks targeting civilian areas. India’s air defence systems intercepted most of the incoming projectiles. In a counter-response, India struck back at Pakistan’s military infrastructure, including key airbases, reportedly causing significant damage.
Against this backdrop, the timing of Trump’s announcement is worth examining. The U.S. has seen its role in South Asia diminish in recent years, particularly as China deepens its involvement through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—most notably via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and other regional projects—which, on the ground, pass through contested territories and further strengthen Beijing’s leverage in the region.
However, whether the U.S. actually played a central role in brokering this ceasefire remains unclear.
India’s official position has been measured, emphasizing that the ceasefire emerged from direct military-to-military communication. This reflects India’s longstanding opposition to third-party involvement in its disputes with Pakistan. While on the other hand, Pakistan has responded more warmly—Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar thanked the U.S. and welcomed its role in promoting peace.
This difference in tone says a lot. For India, foreign mediation risks undermining its position on Kashmir and its broader strategy of regional autonomy. For Pakistan, international involvement often provides a form of legitimacy and a chance to put pressure on India through outside channels.
Meanwhile, Russia, with its long-standing yet committed interest in South Asian stability, is watching closely. It has maintained working relationships with both India and Pakistan and generally supports efforts to reduce tensions. However, it remains cautious about American moves that may sideline other regional stakeholders.
While China’s growing presence in South Asia is often viewed with suspicion in the West, Russia tends to see it as an opportunity for regional and constructive cooperation rather than as any direct threat to any sovereign nation there, whether small or large.
All this means that while the ceasefire is welcome, it doesn’t resolve the underlying issues. Early reports of ceasefire violations are already emerging, including drone attacks by Pakistan on the Udhampur Air Base in Jammu and Kashmir, the Uttarlai Air Force Station in Barmer district, Rajasthan, and India attacks civilian areas in the Chamb sector of Bhimber, Azad Kashmir, as claimed by Pakistan. Mistrust runs deep on both sides, and agreements made in the heat of crisis don’t always last. Without a wider political process, any truce — no matter who claims credit — is unlikely to hold for long.
There’s also a broader question about the U.S. role. American diplomacy has often prioritized short-term objectives over fostering durable regional frameworks. Trump’s approach reflected this pattern — marked by a high-profile announcement and a headline-worthy moment, but lacking clarity on the path forward. It remains uncertain whether Washington genuinely played a decisive role or is merely capitalizing on developments primarily shaped through direct bilateral engagement between New Delhi and Islamabad.
In essence, the ceasefire is a positive step — but only a step. South Asia remains one of the most volatile regions in the world, and lasting peace between India and Pakistan will require more than phone calls and press conferences. What’s needed is sustained engagement, mutual trust, and international support that goes beyond optics. Without that, history risks repeating itself — with yet another crisis, another intervention, and another fragile ceasefire.
