Ceasefire or Countdown? The Fragile India-Pakistan Truce
Asem Mustafa Awan
Islamabad: In May 2025, the world watched with bated breath as tensions between India and Pakistan soared once again, this time sparked by a brutal attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir.
The incident left 26 civilians dead, and India quickly pointed fingers at Pakistan-based militant groups, reigniting a conflict that appeared to be spiraling toward full-blown war. Within hours, the skies above the Line of Control echoed with the sounds of missiles and drone warfare, as both countries demonstrated their technological might in a high-stakes military engagement.
It was U.S. President Donald Trump who eventually announced a ceasefire, claiming Washington had brokered a truce to halt the escalating confrontation. Yet, despite the announcement, skepticism lingers. The question remains: will India, particularly under the growing influence of its aggressive and often nationalistic media, honor the ceasefire, or will war-mongering narratives force another spiral into conflict?
Throughout the conflict, Indian media played a troubling role. Leading channels ran non-stop coverage that bordered on propaganda, calling for military retribution and boasting of hypothetical victories. Some anchors falsely claimed Pakistan’s infrastructure had been decimated, while others declared Indian air superiority unchallenged.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/restrained-jubilations-as-india-and-pakistan-agree-to-ceasefire/
These claims were quickly debunked by international observers, but the damage was done. The media frenzy whipped up nationalist fervor to such a degree that diplomatic de-escalation became politically risky for Indian leadership. With this type of rhetoric dominating public discourse, the foundations of any ceasefire are precarious.
The recent flare-up wasn’t just a traditional skirmish—it marked a significant evolution in the nature of South Asian warfare. This was, in many ways, a testbed for modern military technologies. On one side, Pakistan deployed Chinese-manufactured drones and precision-guided missiles.
Reports confirmed that Chinese missile technology, supplied under longstanding military cooperation agreements, struck key Indian positions, disabling surveillance and radar systems. Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder aircraft, developed jointly with China, proved effective in coordinated strikes, revealing the growing sophistication of Islamabad’s defense capabilities.
India, on the other hand, brought out its high-profile Rafale fighter jets, supplied by France, which were supported by Israeli kamikaze drones and Russian Sukhoi aircraft.
The Indian Air Force’s usage of these cutting-edge jets was meant to demonstrate dominance, but reports of Rafales being engaged and potentially damaged by Pakistani defenses raised eyebrows internationally. It was a rare instance where Western technology faced a real challenge from Chinese alternatives, making the conflict not only regional but a technological faceoff between rival global powers.
As the world zeroed in on the battlefield, another dimension of the conflict quietly escalated—the weaponization of water. India’s announcement to halt provisions under the Indus Waters Treaty was met with alarm in Pakistan, a country heavily reliant on the river system governed by the agreement.
With water security already strained by climate change and mismanagement, any disruption to the treaty carries catastrophic implications. The move was seen by many as an attempt to exert pressure beyond military means, signaling how future conflicts may hinge as much on resources as on ideology or territory.
While the guns have momentarily fallen silent, there is no shared narrative between the two countries on how or why the ceasefire came into effect. President Trump emphasized American diplomatic intervention as the key factor, though India downplayed Washington’s role, crediting instead back-channel military diplomacy. This discrepancy is telling—it highlights how fragile the truce truly is. If the ceasefire’s foundation is unclear, its permanence is doubtful.
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/operation-bunyan-um-marsus-pakistans-new-doctrine/
Behind the scenes, the human toll of the conflict cannot be overlooked. Border villages on both sides suffered displacement, destruction of property, and psychological trauma. Civilian casualties mounted with each drone strike and artillery barrage. Despite these losses, there has been little accountability, and fewer assurances that similar escalations won’t recur.
The global community’s response has been cautious. While major powers called for restraint, few went beyond generic statements. China and France, whose military technologies were directly involved, issued muted responses, careful not to upset lucrative defense partnerships. Israel maintained strategic silence, and Russia, a supplier to both India and Pakistan, urged “dialogue.” The international reluctance to condemn or mediate decisively underscores a broader indifference toward South Asia’s volatile stability.
Looking ahead, the core issues remain unresolved. Pakistan continues to demand justice and accountability following the Pahalgam incident, insisting that it played no role in the attacks. India remains adamant that cross-border militancy must end. Trust, already eroded by decades of suspicion and prior wars, is virtually nonexistent.
The technologies employed during the conflict—drones, precision missiles, stealth jets—suggest that future wars will be even more destructive and less predictable. With both countries racing to modernize their arsenals and deepen military alliances, the stakes have never been higher. If diplomatic mechanisms fail again, the next conflict may move even faster, leaving even less room for negotiation or intervention.
The question remains: will India honor the ceasefire? The answer lies not only in political will, but also in the media’s ability to shift from chest-thumping nationalism to responsible journalism, in the military leadership’s discipline to resist provocation, and in the willingness of both states to sincerely address long-standing grievances. Without these, the ceasefire is merely a pause—certainly not peace.
For now, the world watches and waits. But the next flashpoint may come without warning—and it may not end with just a truce.
The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.
Asem Mustafa Awan has extensive reporting experience with leading national and international media organizations. He has also contributed to reference books such as the Alpine Journal and the American Alpine Journal, among other international publications.
