Islam's Theological Divergences with Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism: A Comparative Overview
Countries That Are Predominantly Muslim And Democratic
India Should Focus On Prosperity, War Is A Distraction
India And Pakistan Now Must Move Towards Lasting Peace
India Pakistan Ceasefire: Most Welcome Step
The recent ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan, announced on May 10, 2025, marks a critical step toward de-escalating tensions in the volatile Jammu and Kashmir region. Despite reports of violations from the Pakistani side, including drone incursions and artillery shelling in areas like Srinagar, Jammu, and Akhnoor, India should refrain from immediate retaliation. This restraint, while challenging, aligns with the broader goal of fostering peace and stability in a region scarred by decades of conflict. The argument for non-retaliation rests on three key points: the gradual nature of ceasefires, the inevitability of mistakes in fragile truces, and the overriding imperative to prioritize long-term peace.
First, ceasefires are rarely instantaneous in their effectiveness; they are gradual processes requiring time to solidify. The India-Pakistan ceasefire followed intense cross-border hostilities sparked by a terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, which killed 26 civilians. The agreement, mediated by international actors like the United States and the United Kingdom, was a response to days of missile strikes, drone attacks, and artillery exchanges. Given this backdrop, immediate compliance is unrealistic. Reports indicate that Pakistan violated the truce within hours, with drones spotted over Srinagar and shelling in multiple sectors. However, such incidents may reflect operational lags, miscommunications, or actions by rogue elements within Pakistan’s military or militant groups. India’s restraint allows time for diplomatic channels, including scheduled talks between the Directors General of Military Operations on May 12, to address these breaches and reinforce the ceasefire’s terms. Retaliation risks derailing this delicate process, escalating tensions back to the brink of war.
Second, mistakes are an inherent part of fragile ceasefires, especially in a region as complex as Jammu and Kashmir. The Line of Control (LoC) is a hotbed of mistrust, with both sides accusing each other of violations. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry has denied some allegations, claiming India initiated breaches, while Indian officials, including Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, have condemned Pakistan’s actions. This mutual blame underscores the fog of conflict, where miscalculations or unauthorized actions can occur. For instance, the drone sightings in Srinagar and Punjab could stem from non-state actors or miscoordinated military units rather than deliberate policy. India’s history of restraint, as seen in past ceasefire agreements like the 2021 truce, shows that absorbing initial violations can prevent escalation. By not retaliating, India avoids playing into the hands of hardliners who may seek to provoke a broader conflict, instead signaling a commitment to dialogue over destruction.
Finally, the pursuit of peace must remain the overriding priority, even in the face of provocation. The people of Jammu and Kashmir, who have endured decades of violence, stand to gain the most from a sustained ceasefire. Celebrations in Uri and other border towns after the truce announcement reflect a deep public yearning for normalcy. Retaliation, while tempting to assert strength, risks reigniting a cycle of violence that could claim more civilian lives and deepen economic and social instability. India, with its larger military and economic capacity, holds a strategic advantage in choosing de-escalation, projecting itself as a responsible regional power. Moreover, international support from the U.S., U.K., and others provides diplomatic leverage to pressure Pakistan into compliance. By maintaining restraint, India strengthens its case for global backing and isolates Pakistan if violations persist.
Critics may argue that non-retaliation signals weakness, emboldening Pakistan or militant groups to exploit the ceasefire. However, strength lies in strategic patience. India’s armed forces remain on high alert, capable of responding decisively if violations escalate beyond isolated incidents. The government’s actions, such as enforcing blackouts and intercepting drones, demonstrate vigilance without breaking the truce. Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts, including Saudi Arabia’s outreach and planned talks, offer pathways to resolve underlying issues like Kashmir and water-sharing disputes.
In conclusion, India should not retaliate against reported Pakistani ceasefire violations in Jammu and Kashmir. Ceasefires are gradual, mistakes are inevitable, and peace remains the ultimate goal. By exercising restraint, India buys time for diplomacy, avoids escalation, and keeps the hope of stability alive for a region long burdened by conflict.
/malaysia-travel-583d01ac5f9b58d5b13cec0d.jpg)
