India-Pakistan US-Mediated Ceasefire: A Tactical Pause or the First Step Toward Peace?

We enumerate ten pointed questions that everyone is asking—yet no one is willing to answer, on record or unequivocally.

India-Pakistan Ceasefire, Mediated by USA

Introduction

In the heart of a volatile subcontinent, where decades of distrust, military brinkmanship, and unresolved disputes have repeatedly threatened regional stability, the sudden announcement of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan on May 10, 2025, has taken observers by surprise. As missiles streaked across the skies and war hysteria gripped both nations, the world braced for escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Yet, from the shadows of conflict emerged a tenuous calm—ushered in, perhaps improbably, by farmer U.S. President Donald Trump (in an earlier version of this article it was inadvertently mentioned as former 😂) . The ceasefire, though fragile, has provided a critical window for pause. But questions remain: How did this ceasefire come about? Will it hold? And can it pave the way for sustained peace?

The Ceasefire: Announced Amid Escalation

The ceasefire was declared after four intense days of cross-border hostilities, primarily centered on Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan engaged in missile and drone strikes on military sites, triggering international alarm. The threat of a larger war loomed as cities went on alert and armed forces mobilized.

Then came the dramatic intervention. President Trump, now in his second term, took to Truth Social to announce a “FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE,” crediting overnight negotiations mediated by the United States. His post sent diplomatic and media circles into a flurry, as celebrations erupted in parts of India and Pakistan, even as Kashmir saw fresh rounds of violence.

Ceasefire Summary (Derived from The Washington Post)

Background and Escalation
Following four days of intense cross-border military action — involving missiles, drones, and airstrikes — between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, fears of full-scale war grew significantly. The conflict escalated primarily over tensions in Kashmir, with both nations targeting military sites.

Ceasefire Announcement and U.S. Involvement
Unexpectedly, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a full and immediate ceasefire via Truth Social, claiming it resulted from overnight negotiations led by the United States. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly played key roles, engaging in direct talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani leaders. While the U.S. emphasized its diplomatic success, Indian officials were more reserved, downplaying third-party mediation.

Reactions and Contrasting Narratives
Pakistan acknowledged the U.S. role, crediting the ceasefire to American intervention and the risk of further escalation.
India remained cautious, with some commentators disputing claims of broader talks and reaffirming India’s historical preference for bilateral handling of Kashmir.
Observers noted that the U.S. acted from an old playbook of crisis management, similar to its intervention during the 1999 Kargil conflict.

Tensions Persist
Despite the ceasefire declaration, violence and accusations of violations continued along the Line of Control. India asserted it would treat any future terror attack as an act of war, signaling a hardening of its defense posture. Reports also indicated continued drone activity and explosions post-announcement, raising concerns about the ceasefire's fragility.

Strategic Interpretations
Experts believe that while both nations inflicted enough damage to claim limited victories, neither side sought escalation into full-blown war. Analysts like Ashley Tellis and Christopher Clary noted that the ceasefire was likely a tactical pause rather than the start of a peace process, with the underlying disputes — particularly over Kashmir — unresolved.

The Summary by Washington Post
The ceasefire, though a diplomatic milestone for the U.S., especially under a second Trump term, remains tenuous. Both India and Pakistan appear to be maintaining a wait-and-watch approach, with military preparedness and political rhetoric continuing unabated. The situation remains volatile, and the potential for renewed conflict persists.

Ten Quick Questions That Demand Answers

1. How credible and reliable is the reported sequence of events surrounding the ceasefire negotiations?
The Washington Post, with its well-established sources in the Trump administration and Pakistan’s power corridors, provides a highly credible account of the events. Their sequence of reportage is likely close to the truth.

2. Is the ceasefire likely to hold in the face of continued tensions and cross-border hostilities?
Yes, barring minor flare-ups such as those seen over Srinagar last night, the ceasefire is expected to hold—especially along the international borders in Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.

3. If bilateral talks do resume, will they be held on genuinely “neutral” ground?
Given the heightened public emotions and the Simla Agreement’s effective dormancy, talks will likely require neutral venues like Dubai or Doha. It is politically unfeasible for either side to host the other in their respective capital cities or elsewhere.

4. Can we realistically expect a process of de-escalation and a structured roadmap to lasting peace?
Yes, but it will be slow and fraught with setbacks. While the direction appears to be toward peace, the path is riddled with complications and strategic risks.

5. Will Pakistan’s terror infrastructure be neutralized—or at the very least—significantly weakened?
A complete dismantling of Pakistan’s terror infrastructure remains unlikely, as it continues to be used by the military establishment as a low-cost, high-impact tool to pursue strategic objectives. However, its capacity to fund and sustain militant activities may weaken in the short term due to a combination of internal pressures. These include severe economic distress, persistent insurgency and popular freedom movement in Balochistan, and escalating violence by Pakistan’s own indigenous Taliban factions, which have been regularly targeting army and police outposts with alarming frequency. Any reduction in terror activity will likely be driven by necessity rather than strategic rethinking.

6. Is active U.S. mediation in India-Pakistan negotiations poised to become a recurring diplomatic feature?
Yes. With President Trump’s assertive involvement and the historical precedent set by President Clinton during Kargil, third-party facilitation is likely to remain a fallback option during future crises.

7. What is the current status and future outlook of the suspended Indus Waters Treaty?
India is unlikely to rescind or revoke its decision to hold in abeyance the Indus Waters Treaty without a comprehensive renegotiation. While Pakistan may push for the restoration of the status quo, New Delhi will now view the treaty through a lens of national interest and strategic leverage.

However, regardless of the outcome of fresh negotiations, if any, the actual construction of infrastructure required to capture and divert waters from the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—will demand significant time, capital investment, and administrative will. The process will also entail substantial ecological and environmental costs, and could trigger new geo-strategic risks.

Moreover, the expected economic benefits for India, especially for Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab, in terms of additional irrigation and hydroelectric generation, are likely to be modest and gradual—not transformative in the short run. Similarly, starving Pakistan of water flows is a long-horizon outcome, unlikely to produce immediate strategic gains.

While the World Bank, a traditional guarantor of the treaty, may recede into the background, the United States could potentially emerge as a key facilitator in any future water-sharing negotiations, especially in the current climate of U.S. re-engagement in Indo-Pak diplomacy.

8. Has the Simla Agreement become obsolete, both in spirit and practice?
Yes. With India and Pakistan no longer engaging bilaterally and third-party actors increasingly stepping in, the Simla Agreement has effectively lost both its relevance and credibility. The very premise of the agreement—bilateral resolution of disputes—has eroded over time due to persistent trust deficits and a lack of meaningful dialogue.

The Trump administration’s mediation during the current ceasefire was swift, public, and effective, with President Trump openly claiming credit for brokering peace. This stands in stark contrast to the behind-the-scenes role played by President Bill Clinton during the Kargil conflict, when Washington exercised quiet but firm diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.

Moreover, recent discussions around neutral venues for future India-Pakistan talks further underscore the increasingly passive, if not active, involvement of host countries and the United States. Even if not formal mediators, these actors are clearly evolving into facilitators of dialogue, marking a shift away from the Simla framework and toward an externally modulated negotiation model.

9. Does the Government of India have a responsibility to disclose the full chronology and content of the negotiations to its citizens?
Undoubtedly. Transparency is key to democratic accountability, especially after a near-war situation. The public deserves clarity on how decisions impacting national security were made. It is, however, doubtful that such a formal disclosure will come out.

10. Why did the official Twitter handle of the Indian Prime Minister’s Office remain silent on Donald Trump’s announcement of the ceasefire?
This silence may reflect discomfort with Trump’s attempt to dominate the narrative. India perhaps wished to frame the ceasefire as a result of Pakistan’s desperation, not American intervention.

In Summary: A Fragile Calm, and the Promise of Resilience

The May 10 ceasefire has halted, if only momentarily, the slide toward open conflict. It underscores the value of restrained leadership, high-stakes diplomacy, and institutional readiness.

India’s response was marked by a rare balance of calm, clarity, and control. Prime Minister Narendra Modi deserves full credit for steering the nation through crisis with maturity. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Home Minister Amit Shah provided vital internal and strategic support. Most notably, External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar and his diplomatic team demonstrated remarkable skill and coordination in managing backchannel discussions and protecting India’s interests on the global stage.

The Indian Armed Forces, especially the Air Defence systems and the Indian Air Force, ensured that even in the face of some of Pakistan’s most aggressive aerial offensives, no major civilian or military casualties occurred across Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, or elsewhere. Their professionalism and preparedness speak volumes of India’s strategic depth and operational discipline.

While the road ahead is uncertain, India must continue walking it—slowly, cautiously, but with resolve. For peace to prevail, it must be guarded as fiercely as sovereignty. And for the people of the subcontinent, even a limping journey toward peace is far better than a reckless sprint into war.

Jai Hind.

---

By Karan Bir Singh Sidhu, Retired IAS Officer, Former Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab; served in key strategic, administrative, and water resource roles, including as Deputy Commissioner in sensitive border districts.