KKN Gurugram Desk | On May 10, 2025, India and Pakistan agreed to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire following weeks of escalating hostilities. However, mere hours after the agreement, India accused Pakistan of violating the truce through drone attacks in Srinagar. This rapid breach has reignited debates over the efficacy of ceasefires and the strategic decisions behind them.

Background: The Pahalgam Attack and Operation Sindoor

The recent escalation traces back to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, where 26 Hindu tourists were killed. India attributed the attack to Pakistan-based militant groups, prompting a series of retaliatory measures, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and the launch of “Operation Sindoor.”

Operation Sindoor was a precision military campaign targeting nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, believed to be hubs for terrorist activities. The Indian Air Force deployed Rafale jets equipped with SCALP missiles and AASM Hammer bombs in a 23-minute operation, striking locations associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Ceasefire Agreement and Immediate Violation

The ceasefire, effective from 5:00 PM IST on May 10, was announced after direct communication between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both nations. However, within hours, India reported violations, including drone attacks in Srinagar and explosions in Jammu and Kashmir.

Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri emphasized the seriousness of these violations, stating that the armed forces were providing an “adequate and appropriate response.”

Expert Opinions: A Missed Strategic Opportunity?

Geopolitical analyst Brahma Chellaney criticized India’s decision to agree to the ceasefire, suggesting it was a premature move that halted military momentum. He remarked, “Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory has long been an Indian political tradition,” referencing past instances where India ceased hostilities despite having a strategic advantage.

Chellaney highlighted previous examples, such as the 1948 ceasefire and the 1972 Shimla Agreement, where India, despite military upper hands, opted for diplomatic resolutions without securing long-term strategic gains.

International Mediation and Reactions

The United States played a pivotal role in mediating the ceasefire, with President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Vice President JD Vance engaging in intensive negotiations with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Despite the agreement, the immediate violations have drawn criticism. President Trump expressed disappointment over the breach, while international bodies like the G7 and the United Nations have called for restraint and a return to diplomatic dialogues.

Current Situation and Outlook

As of now, tensions remain high along the Line of Control (LoC), with both nations accusing each other of violations. Civilian areas continue to be affected, and the risk of further escalation looms.

The swift breakdown of the ceasefire underscores the deep-seated mistrust between India and Pakistan. While diplomatic efforts are ongoing, the path to lasting peace remains fraught with challenges.