By Satish Aparajit
The narrative surrounding the ceasefire between India and Pakistan remains cloaked in mystery. Who truly initiated it? If we go by the prevailing discourse, the US President’s claim to having brokered peace appears credible.
The sudden de-escalation shocked many in India. A public, primed for a decisive military resolution to the long-standing Kashmir conflict, felt blindsided. The prevailing sentiment was that India had the upper hand and should have pressed it further. The Prime Minister’s strong statement — that those behind the heinous terrorist attack would be hunted down anywhere in the world — had raised expectations of a decisive response. Instead, a ceasefire was accepted, triggering a national sense of letdown.
Yet, this emotional reaction overlooked the broader implications. War offers no guarantees. Given global parallels like Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza, there’s always the risk of escalation into a prolonged conflict or even a full-scale war. Israel faces little conventional military resistance. Pakistan, by contrast, possesses a well-trained and organised military. Both sides suffered losses in the limited strikes that did occur. And what is the true cost of war? A potential economic rollback of 5–7 years — a setback India can ill afford. In hindsight, questions arise, but decisions made in the moment must account for more than emotion.
So, what really prompted the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) from both countries to talk? DGMOs don’t independently decide on ceasefires — such decisions are inherently political. If the whispers in diplomatic circles are to be believed, the United States may have intervened. Faced with a desperate Pakistan that some feared might resort to nuclear weapons, the US likely pushed both nations toward de-escalation to avert catastrophe.
There are even unverified reports suggesting that nuclear waste is stored deep in the Kinara Hills. When the Indian Air Force precisely targeted the entrance to a suspected nuclear facility, it sent shockwaves through Pakistan. Sensing vulnerability, Pakistan reportedly leveraged this crisis to pressure the US, hinting at the use of nuclear weapons unless the IMF bailout package was cleared. The US, wary of global repercussions, allegedly brought both nations to the table at the DGMO level.
In a masterstroke of diplomacy (or manipulation), Pakistan secured not only a ceasefire but also the financial bailout it was after. The world learned of the ceasefire not through India or Pakistan, but from POTUS — who promptly claimed credit.
America’s policy toward Pakistan continues to be an enigmatic blend of pragmatism and contradiction — a strange mix of love and distrust. Despite being a victim of terrorism, the US has never declared Pakistan a rogue state. The fact that Osama bin Laden was found and killed in Abbottabad — a stone’s throw from Pakistan’s military academy — is testament to Pakistan’s double game. Though Pakistan has suffered greatly from terrorism, losing more lives than India or even the US, it remains a hub for extremist training and continues to receive Western support. Is this due to Pakistani diplomatic skill, or does the West simply need Pakistan for its own covert operations?
Many Islamic terror outfits were, after all, born of US funding and trained on Pakistani soil. Thus, while the world applauded the US President’s intervention, Pakistan celebrated a bizarre kind of “victory in defeat” — a rare spectacle in modern warfare. In an even stranger twist, General Asim Munir was promoted to Field Marshal — a first in history where a military leader is elevated despite failure.
India’s response was measured but pointed: the ceasefire is merely a “pause”, and any future terror attacks will be treated as acts of war. But what does this signal to a country like Pakistan, which shows no sign of changing its strategy? A leopard never changes its spots. Can war ever truly resolve this conflict?
Since 1948, the Indo-Pak dispute has simmered, unresolved. Terrorism has evolved into a strategic tool for Pakistan — a way to engage global powers and extract funding. China, Pakistan’s strongest backer, uses it as a proxy against India, which it views as its main economic rival. India must prepare for the possibility of a two-front conflict and invest heavily in counter-terrorism strategies: predictive, preventive, pre-emptive, protective, and, when necessary, punitive.
Pakistan, as history has shown, is an unreliable neighbour. It’s only a matter of time before another provocation occurs. The question is: will India retaliate militarily or pursue diplomatic options? No country, not even Israel, has been able to fully eliminate terrorism — as Gaza’s rubble proves. India must engage Pakistan directly, both strategically and diplomatically.
It’s worth remembering how India’s then-Prime Minister handled the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Despite immense pressure from right-wing factions to strike Pakistan militarily, he chose a firm yet diplomatic path. The result: a period of relative peace, with no major terror attacks for six years.
In conclusion, India must keep its finger on the “pause” button, while remaining ready to strike when necessary. But it must also exhaust all diplomatic avenues to resolve the conflict once and for all — not out of weakness, but out of strategic foresight.
(The author is a retired Wing Commander of the Indian Air Force and a Shaurya Chakra awardee.)
