A Pause or Ceasefire?

Nilofar Suhrawardy

Given that India and Pakistan has perpetually been engaged in conflicts on several issues at various levels, any “ceasefire” can certainly not be considered as long-lasting or even effective. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has described the “ceasefire” or the so-called ceasefire in the India-Pakistan war as a “pause.” What does one understand from this? Even though the present “ceasefire” has certainly led to a “pause” in firing missiles, etc. at each other, the two have not stopped firing verbal missiles and displaying their bilateral diplomatic antagonism to their respective public, media and others regarding differences which are probably least likely to be resolved at least in near future.

At the same time, it is worth noting, there have also been phases when, despite their diplomatic animosity, they have moved forward to apparently “cordial” relations at a few levels. One of these is entertainment as Indian movies and actors are fairly popular in Pakistan. Pakistani television serials may be viewed as a hit in India, with their being an Indian channel on it, which has been suspended at present due to India-Pak tension following the Pahalgam tragedy. There is also a mutual fondness for similar music, dresses, food and so forth. The Pahalgam tragedy led to the murder of 26 persons by terrorists allegedly supported by Pakistan in India-controlled Jammu and Kashmir (JK) on April 22.

Pahalgam-tragedy, as was evident, prompted India to strike at “terrorists” in Pakistan, which latter treated as “war” and retaliated. The “war” could have assumed a far more serious nature, with both countries being armed with nuclear weapons. Speculations are certainly being voiced about their having almost reached this stage, leading to the intervention of other powers for a ceasefire. Paradoxically, India entertains differences about whether “ceasefire” is due to the United States’ efforts and whether it has really been reached or not. In his national address, Modi viewed this “ceasefire” stage as a pause in their war, and it being a bilateral move. This stand may primarily be due to India and Pakistan having earlier basically resolved their differences bilaterally. This may be linked to two key issues. One is that neither is keen for any external interference in their nuclear drive which has led to bilateral nuclear diplomacy, serving as a “deterrent” in their relations. The second is regarding their differences over Kashmir. It may be noted, the recent tension was feared to have almost reached the stage of a nuclear war, leading to urgent interference by the US.

Notwithstanding all the hype being raised by both to their respective people and media about having succeeded against the other in this “war,” one is compelled to deliberate on whether they could have avoided the same. Or was this war-game directed for some other results?

Those supporting Indian strikes and keen for the continuation of the same were eager for New Delhi opting for moves similar to those of Israel against Gaza. While the rest of the world was keen for de-escalation of the India-Pak war, Israel reportedly voiced its support for India going its way.

Chances of the “war” lasting longer than it did- around four days- were extremely limited, according to some observers. In their view, the “war” was deliberately engaged by leaders of both countries to enhance their image before their respective public and also to demonstrate their military strength to them as well as certain key powers. Now, the question is, to what degree have they succeeded? Demonstration of their “strength” internally was essential, as according to critics, both have not been able to achieve much during their stay in power. Of course, this issue is likely to be deliberated and debated upon for quite some time in both countries with government-controlled media laying stress on the success achieved by their leaders in this “war.” Where military strength is concerned, undeniably, the “war” did open eyes of both the countries and certain key powers to their credibility as well as limitations. Claims laid by each to their respective successes in downing other’s planes and silence maintained about their suspected limitations may be viewed as just a symbolic reality of this fact. Even if it is accepted that India has far greater strength than Pakistan, it cannot be assumed that latter is not as weak as was apparently calculated by former. Besides, the Indian sub-continent cannot be easily equated with Israel-Gaza terrain. Nor can India-Pak military conflict be viewed from the lens through which the latter is seen.

In fact, the India-Pak war has also exposed diplomatic as well as political loopholes existing at various levels about the two permanent enemies’ ties. One is the fear, the apprehension about their nuclear strength edging to the point of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Despite this “war” having displayed missile-drones strikes from both sides, alarming observers about their impact, restraint was exercised by them before the situation could worsen. Interestingly, even the “ego-battle” visible at various levels on both sides, from leaders, government-controlled media, sections of the public, etc., was not allowed to act as a barrier in their agreeing to the so-called “ceasefire” or pause in their war.

Equally relevant is the fact that this war also served as a display of who the two countries’ diplomatic supporters were and, more crucial, suppliers of their weapons, planes, and so forth. While India’s strength is primarily dependent on what it secured from the West and Russia, that of Pakistan is on China as well as Turkey. From this angle, the West, particularly the United States, was keeping a close eye on the quality of Chinese support. This also raises the question of whether President Trump took a U-turn on the sky-high tariff imposed on China earlier and opted for a 90-day “pause,” because of what it gauged about it from the India-Pak war. Earlier, the US had apparently considered favouring India against China. But instability in the Indian region, raised because of conflict with Pakistan and noise about terrorism here, may have prompted Trump to give a second thought to the same. Perhaps, it is not without reason that Trump has recently chosen to consider a change in diplomatic stance towards China, Iran, and Syria, at least for now. India and Pakistan have a lot to gain and more to lose if they choose to stop firing diplomatic missiles at each other and instead consider a cordial handshake, even if just to please other powers keeping a close eye on their ties. “Noise” made in India about “ceasefire” being just a “pause” doesn’t add to diplomatic gains from other quarters, because of the India-Pakistan war. It is equivalent to raising apprehensions about another such “war” being around the corner. Diplomatically, politically, and economically, prospects of this spelling national development or even leaving scope for the same may be ruled out. War can spell only crises, damages, and losses at different levels!

[Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy. She has come out with several books. These include: Modi’s Victory, A Lesson for the Congress…? (2019); Arab Spring, Not Just a Mirage! (2019), Image and Substance, Modi’s First Year in Office (2015) and Ayodhya Without the Communal Stamp, In the Name of Indian Secularism (2006).]

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 51, June 15 - 21, 2025