India and Pakistan between the apparent calm and the suspended explosion policy

In the wake of 5 days of escalation, the most dangerous in decades, the spark of the possibility of a nuclear confrontation was extinguished after the US -mediating talks that resulted in President Donald Trump’s announcement, on May 10, 2025, that India and Pakistan agreed to a comprehensive and immediate ceasefire.

While New Delhi and Islamabad pick up their breaths, question marks remain suspended: Was this confrontation a temporary force or the beginning of a larger inferred explosion? Does the ceasefire represent a gateway to a serious dialogue, or just a fragile truce that quickly collapses?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkwywhvy

What after a ceasefire?

With the announcement of the ceasefire, India and Pakistan began military talks aimed at fixing the calm on the control line in Kashmir, the most tense point between the two countries. Despite this positive step, the situation is still fragile, as the forces on both sides are at a state of maximum alert, and any simple breach that may ignite the escalation again, which reflects the fragility of the current stability and its association with accurate field factors.

At the internal level, both parties face pressing political challenges. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tried to invest the crisis to strengthen his image as a strict leader in fighting “terrorism”, but his failure to achieve goals from escalation and losses may flip the equation against him, especially with the escalation of opposition criticism that he sees is leading the country to unaccounted adventures.

In Pakistan, the leadership used the military response to enhance national unity and raise morale, but the worsening economic crisis may weaken this cohesion and increase popular pressure at home.

Internationally, the United States has emerged as an active mediator in the escalation of escalation, giving it additional influence in South Asia. As for China, the traditional ally of Islamabad, it continued its political support for Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as part of regional efforts to maintain stability.

While India insists on rejecting any external mediation in the Kashmir file, which constitutes an obstacle to any real diplomatic progress.

The two parties exchange accusations about violations of the ceasefire from the complexity of the scene, as the Secretary of the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vikram Maysri, confirmed that “repeated violations”, calling for Pakistan to take serious measures. For its part, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry responded to the accusation of India of violating the agreement, stressing that its forces deal with “responsibility and self -control.”

Who is the victor?

Despite the announcement of Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, “The Day of Victory” after the ceasefire, and the Pakistani media considered India’s acceptance of the truce as a victory for the Pakistani army, many observers believe that there is ambiguity in determining the “victor” in these confrontations.

Military, India showed a relatively superiority through air strikes using Rafale and Sukhoi-30 aircraft targeting 9 Pakistani sites, but the Pakistani response came quickly and strongly, as Indian sites were accurately targeted, with a claim to bring down 5 Indian fighters, including 3 Rafale aircraft, which revealed gaps in India’s defenses.

The sudden Pakistani response had a strong moral impact inside the country, as the army strengthened its image as a force capable of confronting a greater enemy, and the Pakistani government presented itself as an internal victor, taking advantage of the fact that India – which had begun to escalate – eventually had to accept the ceasefire.

In this context, the Pakistani newspaper “Jang” wrote in its editorial that “the Moody government was forced to announce the ceasefire after it incurred significant losses by the Pakistani forces in only 5 days of confrontations.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voznag6fw8o

Politically, both parties have achieved internal gains. Moody has strengthened his image as a defender of national security, while Pakistan presented itself as a country that resists the “Indian aggression”.

andBut economically, both countries incur losses that include closing of airspace and the destruction of military and civilian sites.

In the midst of this complex equation, analysts believe that the last escalation, despite its cost, enabled the two parties to strengthen their positions internally, but it did not lead to a fundamental change in the conflict equation.

While Pakistan has succeeded in employing the military response to restore the morale of its people and enhance the national cohesion, this popular momentum remains fragile unless it is translated into tangible political and economic stability.

The writer and Pakistani political analyst, Bushra Sakfaf, notes the importance of preserving the moral gains, saying: “Certainly the army and the Pakistani government succeeded in restoring the confidence of the people, but the real challenge lies in preserving this morale and investing in a long -term reform path.”

On the other hand, the Moody government appears to be keen to invest the crisis to enhance the “confrontation of terrorism” narratives and attract support at home, especially in light of the approaching possible electoral benefits, but the human and material losses that have been affected by India may reopen the debate inside India over the cost of escalation and its political and security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c153tdmbhi

Is the conflict ended?

Although the nuclear balance between the two neighbors prohibits the outbreak of an overall war, it did not prevent border clashes and wars by proxy, but rather encouraged them within the limits of “calculated conflict” and in light of the last ceasefire between India and Pakistan, it is clear that the current calm is not an end to the conflict but rather a break in a dispute that extends for decades since the division of the Indian subcontinent in 1947.

The Kashmir issue remains the essence of tensions, as India controls two thirds of the region and Pakistan on the remaining third, while each party claims full sovereignty over it.

In 2019, India’s decision to cancel the autonomy of the Jammu and Kashmir region has increased the complexity of the situation, at a time when Pakistan is calling for a popular referendum and international intervention to resolve the fate of the region, which makes the political solution closer to the mirage.

A long history of hostility and lack of confidence between New Delhi and Islamabad holds the chances of any real rapprochement. Pakistani writer and journalist Hamid Mir believes that the current Indian policies do not remain room for serious negotiations: “I support the start of purposeful negotiations in the wake of the ceasefire, but there is no place for such negotiations in Narindra Modi’s policy towards Pakistan.”

Mir reminds Modi’s remarks on March 24, 2012, when he publicly expressed his support for the idea of ​​”Akhanid Bahrat” – the unified India – and even expressed his desire to include the Pakistani Sindh region.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln9izx_hwxg

The geopolitical developments in South Asia indicate the absence of effective political dialogue channels between India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue, which is still the focus of the conflict between the two countries. Despite the signing of previous agreements, such as the Lahore Declaration in 1999 and the ceasefire agreement in 2003, no concrete progress has been made towards a permanent settlement, which made the control line in the disputed region witness continuous violations and repeated violence explosions.

“The last ceasefire is an important achievement, but Indian Prime Minister Modi may seek to disavow him with the aim of saving his political future,” Mir says, referring to the potential political employment of regional tensions in the Indian.

In this context, populist policies in both countries constitute a major obstacle to making any real concessions, as any softening in the positions on Kashmir is seen as a national betrayal, which makes it difficult for any steps towards reconciliation.

In light of India’s frequent rejection of international mediation, in exchange for Pakistan’s welcome, calm efforts become vulnerable to stagnation and collapse at any moment, especially with the repetition of armed clashes on the control line, whether it is the result of military provocations or attacks attributed to armed groups.

“The current truce is not a solution but a mere temporary deadline that avoids an imminent catastrophe and maintains a degree of economic stability, but it will not prevent escalation unless there is permanent international pressure and a real commitment to address the deep roots of the conflict, led by the Kashmir issue.”

Political and military repercussions

In the midst of this escalation, the two countries seemed to seek to use the crisis to achieve internal political gains.In India, the government invested the confrontation to enhance the national discourse and unify the street behind it, especially in light of electoral and economic pressure. The military response was highlighted as a defense of sovereignty, which helped to pay attention to complex living issues, and to present the opposition as weak in the face of national challenges.

In the context of the internal criticism of the ruling party’s policies in dealing with the crisis, Indian writer Sidharth Faradarajan directed criticism of the government, describing the “Cindy” operation led by Modi as “a dangerous strategy based on wrong accounts.”

“The government may give the impression that India has achieved all its goals, but the fact is that Modi took a move whose result was unwanted, but it is completely expected,” added Faradarajan in a post on the X platform.

As for Pakistan, the political and military leadership saw that tension with India is an opportunity to enhance internal cohesion and raise morale, and the army has devoted – as a major actor in decision -making – its image as a guarantor of national security, while the government sought to highlight security threats and link some of them to external factors.

This speech helped mobilize popular support, despite the difficult economic conditions the country is going through.

Possible files and scenarios

Regional data indicates that the next stage will be decisive, with the emergence of a number of hot files that require urgent solutions to avoid slipping towards an open confrontation.

In addition to the Kashmir case, the New Delhi decision comes to suspend the Sindh River Water Treaty, which provides about 80% of the water used in Pakistani agriculture, which is seen As a direct threat to food security in Pakistan, and raises serious concerns about a humanitarian crisis that may lead Islamabad to respond, either through diplomatic escalation or limited military steps.

In an interview with the “Gio News” channel, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif, in an interview with the “Gio News” channel, indicated that any possible negotiations between the two countries will focus on 3 main axes, which are terrorism, water and cashmere.

In this context, the researcher at the South Asian Center, Shuja Nawaz, believes that the leaders in both countries, and after fueling national feelings, will search for a necessary break to reduce tension, He pointed to what US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as “the beginning of talks on a wide range of issues in a neutral place”, and believes that the Gulf may be one of the options for hosting this round of dialogue.

The Pakistani writer, the minor coincidence, calls for the need for India and Pakistan to overcome their historical differences, stressing that “the solution does not lie in confrontation, but rather in the sincere dialogue that leads to a permanent peace and a common prosperity,” stressing that the two sides need to work together to face more urgent challenges such as poverty, ignorance, health and climate change.

Observers believe that the region may witness 3 possible tracks to the balance of international powers and pressure:

• FirstlyIf the conversations succeed in restoring confidence, then The region may witness a relative calm, but this requires difficult political concessions, especially from India regarding Kashmir.
• secondlyLimited tensions are likely to continue with the control line with separate violations of the ceasefire, without a comprehensive escalation thanks to nuclear deterrence.
• ThirdThe possibility of escalation remains in the event of a major attack or a widespread breach of the ceasefire in Kashmir, despite the pressure of the international community and the high cost of any total war.

In her analysis of the security scene in South Asia, Manal Fatima confirms that the disturbances are still continuing in the disputed Kashmir region, the roots of the crisis are still deep and rooted, and the field reality of the Kashmiris has not witnessed an improvement in that they are still stuck “between the fire of the militants on the one hand, and military campaigns and political repression on the other.”

Therefore, according to Fatima, in the absence of a clear horizon for a permanent political solution that ends their continuous suffering, the “terrorist” attack that took place in April may be used as a justification by the Indian government to expand the repression campaigns in Kashmir, noting that the classification of “suspects of their belonging to terrorism” remains mysterious and loose, which opens the door to widespread targeting of innocent people, without adequate legal justifications.