The India Pakistan Ceasefire: How It Came To Be

The India-Pakistan ceasefire announced on May 10, 2025, emerged from a complex interplay of military escalation, international mediation, and domestic pressures, centered on the volatile Kashmir region. The ceasefire aimed to halt days of intense cross-border strikes that risked escalating into a full-scale war between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Here’s a detailed breakdown of how it came about, based on available information:

Background and Trigger

The ceasefire was a response to a rapid escalation of hostilities that began on April 22, 2025, when a terrorist attack in the Baisaran Valley of Indian-administered Kashmir killed 25 Hindu tourists, one Christian tourist, and one local Muslim, injuring over 20 others. The Resistance Front (TRF), a splinter group linked to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility. India accused Pakistan of supporting the attack, a charge Pakistan denied. This incident reignited tensions over Kashmir, a long-standing flashpoint since the 1947 partition of British India.

On May 6, India launched "Operation Sindoor," targeting nine alleged "terrorist infrastructure" sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The operation involved missile strikes, drone attacks, and artillery barrages, killing at least 31 people, including civilians, according to Pakistani reports. Pakistan responded with "Operation Bunyan Marsoos," targeting Indian military bases, including airfields, with missiles and drones. The four days of tit-for-tat strikes, from May 6 to May 10, marked the worst bilateral confrontation since 2019, with a combined civilian death toll of 66 and fears of nuclear escalation.

Escalation and Strategic Concerns

The conflict intensified on May 10 when India’s Air Force used BrahMos-A cruise missiles to strike key Pakistani air bases, including Chaklala near Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Jacobabad, Bholari, and Skardu. Indian intelligence detected heightened security around Pakistan’s nuclear command and control infrastructure, particularly the Strategic Plans Division in Rawalpindi, suggesting Pakistan feared India might target its nuclear assets. This raised alarm in Islamabad, prompting Pakistan to seek urgent international intervention.

Both nations imposed punitive measures: India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, and both sides halted trade and visa issuances. Pakistan closed its airspace, disrupting global aviation, while India signaled readiness for deeper strikes on Pakistani economic and strategic targets. The situation was further complicated by domestic pressures—India’s government faced criticism for not achieving clear strategic gains, while Pakistan’s military framed its response as a historic victory.

International Mediation

The ceasefire was facilitated by intense diplomatic efforts, primarily led by the United States, though other nations played supporting roles. The process unfolded as follows:

1. U.S. Involvement: On May 10, after 48 hours of diplomacy, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire on Truth Social, claiming it was brokered by the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance engaged with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and other senior officials, including India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir, and national security advisors Ajit Doval and Asim Malik. The U.S. reportedly pressed Pakistan to de-escalate via military hotlines after the nuclear facility concerns emerged.
2. Multilateral Efforts: Pakistan acknowledged mediation by the U.S., China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, Qatar, and the UK. The UK, having recently signed a trade deal with India, and Saudi Arabia, with strong ties to Pakistan, were notably active. China, sharing borders with both nations, urged restraint and supported the ceasefire, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi engaging both sides. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also welcomed the agreement, emphasizing de-escalation.
3. Direct Military Communication: The ceasefire agreement was formalized through a conversation between the directors general of military operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan. They agreed to halt all firing and military actions on land, air, and sea, effective from 5:00 PM IST (11:30 GMT) on May 10. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed the agreement, though India downplayed U.S. involvement, asserting the deal was negotiated directly.

Ceasefire Agreement and Initial Violations

The agreement stipulated an immediate cessation of hostilities and, according to U.S. officials, included plans for talks on broader issues at a neutral site, though India denied committing to such discussions. Celebrations erupted in both countries, and Pakistan reopened its airspace. However, within hours, explosions were reported in Indian-administered Kashmir, particularly in Srinagar and Jammu, with air defense systems engaging targets. India accused Pakistan of “repeated violations,” with Misri stating the Indian military was instructed to respond “adequately.” Pakistan denied breaching the truce, instead accusing India of violations and urging restraint and communication to resolve issues.

Despite these accusations, the ceasefire appeared to hold into May 11, with no major escalations reported overnight. Both sides expressed commitment to the truce, though mutual distrust persisted, fueled by conflicting narratives. Pakistan’s Sharif framed the ceasefire as a victory for national honor, while India’s government faced domestic scrutiny over whether Operation Sindoor achieved its anti-terrorism goals.

Key Factors Driving the Ceasefire

Several factors converged to make the ceasefire possible:

• Nuclear Risk: The proximity of strikes to Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure and rhetoric about nuclear readiness heightened global fears of catastrophic escalation, prompting urgent U.S. intervention.
• International Pressure: The G7, UN, and regional powers like Saudi Arabia and China pushed for de-escalation, leveraging economic and diplomatic ties. The U.S. likely used Pakistan’s reliance on IMF loans as leverage.
• Military Stalemate: Both sides sustained significant losses—India downed Pakistani drones, while Pakistan claimed to have damaged Indian assets like Rafale jets and S-400 systems. The high cost of continued fighting, economically and militarily, incentivized a pause.
• Domestic Narratives: Both governments needed to claim victory to appease domestic audiences. The ceasefire allowed each to step back while maintaining face—India as a strong responder to terrorism, Pakistan as a resilient defender.

Challenges and Fragility

The ceasefire’s fragility was evident in the immediate accusations of violations and the lack of agreement on broader talks. India’s rejection of neutral-site negotiations and its insistence on a hardline anti-terrorism stance contrasted with Pakistan’s call for dialogue on Kashmir and water-sharing. The 2021 ceasefire, one of the longest-lasting, had similarly been vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and analysts noted that this new truce faced similar risks, especially given the sensationalist media environments in both countries.

Posts on X reflected polarized sentiments: some Indian users claimed the ceasefire resulted from India’s decisive strikes, while Pakistani users argued Pakistan’s robust response forced India to back down. These narratives underscore the ongoing battle for public perception, which could undermine the truce if not managed carefully.

Conclusion

The May 10, 2025, India-Pakistan ceasefire was a product of intense military pressure, international mediation led by the U.S., and strategic calculations to avoid nuclear escalation. While direct military communication formalized the agreement, the U.S. played a pivotal role, despite India’s downplaying of external involvement. The truce held into May 11, but its longevity remains uncertain due to mutual distrust, domestic political pressures, and the unresolved Kashmir dispute. For now, it represents a critical pause in a conflict that threatened to spiral out of control, but sustained dialogue and confidence-building measures will be essential to prevent future flare-ups.