After four days of escalating military exchanges involving drones, loitering munitions, missiles, artillery, and fighter aircraft that set off international alarm bells, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on May 10. Though tenuous, it seemed to be holding a day later.
The cessation of hostilities has shifted the focus to what India achieved with its military strikes, codenamed Operation Sindoor, which began on May 7 when India struck nine terrorist training camps and launch pads inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, in retaliation for the terrorist attacks in Pahalgam in India’s Jammu and Kashmir that left 26 people dead.
Unnamed sources quoted by several news organizations on Sunday said that India’s goal was to ensure that Pakistan and the terrorist groups it nurtured received the message that “no place is safe” for them if they target India or Indian interests. The Indian military would target any part of Pakistani territory, hitting “targets that are identified with their security establishment.” That message, they said, had been sent successfully to Pakistan and the international community.
According to these sources, India has set a “new normal” in its response to terrorism by raising costs for the perpetrators and their supporters.
In retaliation for India’s military strikes, Pakistan focused its attacks on Indian military bases. But this only triggered stronger responses from India, the reports quoting unnamed sources said.
“The actions taken by India are aimed at creating and setting a new normal in the relationship. It is not business as usual. Pakistan and the world will have to get used to this new normal because India has had enough,” a report in the Hindustan Times said, quoting an anonymous source.
Despite the ceasefire, there is no let-up on the measures India announced in the immediate aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, which included suspending the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.
“The cost of terrorism has increased. The Indus Waters Treaty is linked to the cross-border terrorism and it will be held in abeyance as long as terrorism from Pakistan continues,” unnamed sources said. “Essentially, the point is that Pakistan cannot carry on with cross-border terrorism while expecting cooperation in areas of its own choosing,” the sources added.
This indicates a decisive shift in Indian strategy in dealing with terrorism emanating from Pakistan. India had launched surgical strikes against terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in 2016, following an attack on an Indian army camp in Uri. That attack claimed 19 lives. In 2019, when a terrorist blew up a vehicle, killing 40 paramilitary personnel, India struck a terrorist camp in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
Both were seen as limited in scope compared to the strikes carried out on May 7 when India targeted camps along a swathe of territory, including Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan. In all, four targets in Pakistan and five in Pakistan-administered Kashmir were hit. Two of the locations – Bahawalpur and Muridke – are in Pakistan’s politically important Punjab province, the base of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his family.
Indian diplomats have in the past few days highlighted the fact that Pakistani military personnel were seen attending the funerals of those killed at places like Muridke, known to be the base of the Lashkar-e-Taiba group. They also pointed out that the coffins of the dead were draped in Pakistan’s national flag.
While India may have achieved its immediate objectives, its future strategy in dealing with terrorism emanating from Pakistan is equally, if not more, important.
An important issue impacting India’s strategy will be the U.S. role. On Saturday, it was U.S. President Donald Trump who announced that India and Pakistan had agreed on a ceasefire. Announcements from New Delhi and Islamabad followed thereafter. India’s denial notwithstanding, it is evident that the U.S. mediation helped broker the ceasefire deal.
In 2019, during his first term as president, Trump offered to mediate between India and Pakistan. He offered to mediate again prior to the ceasefire deal, which New Delhi politely refused.
But with Trump announcing the U.S. role in clinching the ceasefire deal and calming tensions, it may be more difficult for Delhi to refuse mediation offers going forward. India also needs international backing to ensure Pakistan is kept in the dock for nurturing terrorism and here the support of the U.S. is critical.
In his statement on the ceasefire on Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he and Vice President J.D. Vance had extensive conversations with senior Indian and Pakistani officials, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Pakistani counterpart Shehbaz Sharif. Both countries would soon start talks on “a broad set of issues at a neutral site,” he added.
Meanwhile, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar in an X post indicated that it was India and Pakistan that reached an understanding, on what he called the “stoppage” of firing and military action. The subtext was clear: it was a bilateral effort that yielded agreement on the ceasefire. Jaishankar’s statement subtly rejected the idea that the truce was U.S.-mediated, as Trump had framed it. There was no reference to any resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan, as mentioned by Rubio. There would be no discussion on Kashmir. Separately, India has also decided that any act of terrorism would be treated as an act of war. This signals a toughened stance against terrorist attacks.
Traditionally, India has rejected third party mediation to sort out disputes with Pakistan, while Islamabad has welcomed and sought it. Though there are a range of disputes that strain India-Pakistan ties, the thorniest is the dispute over the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Both claim the region in its entirety while administering it in part.
Dialogue has been at a standstill since 2016 following a terrorist attack on an Indian air force base. Under Modi, India has insisted that Pakistan stop sponsoring terrorism against India for the talks to start. Pakistan denies supporting terrorist groups though it admits to extending political and diplomatic support to what it calls a freedom struggle against Indian rule.
A second problem that India will have to factor into its strategy is the fast-developing friendship between Pakistan and Bangladesh. Following the ouster of the India-friendly Sheikh Hasina government, relations between India and Bangladesh have soured, even as the interim government in Dhaka has developed cordial ties with Pakistan. Comments by a Bangladeshi official that in the event of an Indian attack on Pakistan, Bangladesh should respond by occupying India’s Northeast raised eyebrows in New Delhi.
Last but not the least is India’s giant neighbor, China. While Sino-Indian relations have been tense, especially in the wake of the 2020 Galwan crisis, Beijing’s relationship with Pakistan remains strong. The strength of the partnership was underscored repeatedly during the recent India-Pakistan face-off, with the Chinese government assuring Pakistan of its continued support in safeguarding the latter’s “sovereignty, territorial integrity and national independence.” Pakistan’s deployment of Chinese fighter aircraft and missiles against India and their performance in the recent India-Pakistan military confrontation has caused some concern in India’s security community. It can be expected to trigger major aircraft and weapon purchases by India.