The Indo-Pak Ceasefire : Some Tentative Observations | P. S. Jayaramu

11th May, 2025

The Indian military action against the perpetrators of the heinous killings of the innocent citizens in Pahalgam on 22nd April has come to an end following the oral agreement between Pakistan and India. The Indian leadership described from the very beginning that its military operations were measured, non-escalatory and proportionate nd was aimed at the terrorists and their hideouts supported by the Pakistani military establishment under General Asif Munir, who has brought himself up in the Madrasa tradition, unlike many earlier Generals. Speaking about the ceasefire, the Indian foreign office has rightly declared that any further acts of terrorism would be considered as an act of war and that we would respond to them appropriately. The short military operations by the Air Force and the Army were extensively covered by the electronic media, showings pictures of the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure, located in different parts of Pakistan, along with the killing of some of the terrorist leaders and their family members. Such acts have naturally pleased the political leadership and the defence forces as well as the citizens, more particularly the family members of those gunned down in Pahalgam.

The Indian military operations deserve some scrutiny. The following observations are tentative as we do not have a clear picture about the extent of retribution carried out by our forces, with the Foreign Secretary himself that some of the details would be made known at the appropriate time. He said so in response to a foreign correspondent’s question as to whether 4-5 Indian aircraft’s, including an F-16, were brought down by the Pakistanis. While positions like the one our foreign secretary took are understandable, it is as clear as day light that in any armed conflict, both sides are bound to suffer some losses- human as well as military equipment.

Let me focus my observations on the ceasefire that has been worked out. Firstly, at the time of writing, (11th May) the ceasefire agreement appears only to be an oral agreement between the DGMOs of Pakistan and India. It remains to be seen whether it will be followed by a written agreement duly signed by appropriate higher authorities from both sides. One associated crucial question is whether this ceasefire will hold and if so, how long, as this issue bothers both the leaders and the lay citizens, particularly those who live in border areas.

Secondly, going by the statement released by the US State Department, it appears that the decision was brokered by the US Administration. What lends credence to it is that President Trump has taken credit for the ceasefire agreement, though of course he praised the Indian and Pakistani leadership for being visionary etc,. Given his penchant for attempting to broker peace globally, he has also offered to mediate between India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue. It is reported that the Indian side has rejected any external mediation on the issu. It is noteworthy that ever since the Simla Agreement, we have taken the position that issues relating to Kashmir would be resolved peacefully through bilateral negotiations. The time-honoured Indian position is that J & K is an integral part of India and that the only issue which needs resolution is about the Pak-occupied Kashmir which legitimately belongs to us.

Thirdly, there are reports that the ceasefire was worked out following back-channel talks between the Indian and the Pakistani side, with rumours of former Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif pressuring his brother and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to agree to ceasefire . Clarity about this issue may or may not emerge.

Fourthly, the role of the electronic media in India has been jingoistic, bordering on war-mongering. While such things were resorted to some anchors, it must be stressed that the media should, however difficult it is, strive to cover the developments objectively without expressing their biased opinions during their coverage of events.

Sixthly, some comparisons are made, rightly so, regarding the advanced capabilities of India and Pakistan in land, air and naval fields, given the role of advanced technologies and their impact on warfare. Furthermore, the reality of both India and Pakistan being nuclear weapon-states should be a factor in deciding on issues of escalation and de-escalation. Mercifully, the ending of the conflict in less than a week has denied chances to the hawks on both sides to whip-up sentiments for a spiraling of the military engagement. It was highly irresponsible on the part of the Pakistani military leadership to repeatedly resort to nuclear blackmail. In contrast, the Indian side conducted itself in a mature and responsible manner. It is gratifying that the poliitical leadership’s position following the Pahalgam killings, has been to explain its mission as limited to destroying the terror leadership and its infrastructure in the different region of Pakistan, though of course some of the military targets were subjected to missile attacks.

Finally, the situation on the border can only be described as tense, given the unpredictability of the present military leadership in Pakistan. The expectation is that the Trump Administration would rein in the Pakistani Establishment in the days and months to come. Both India and Pakistan deserve periods of peace which alone can lead to prosperity and development of the two nations. A democratic Pakistan where the wings of the military would be clipped in decision making will add to the stability of South Asia.

(Author: Prof. P. S Jayaramu is former Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, Bangalore University and a former Senior Fellow, ICSSR, New Delhi)