India-Pakistan Ceasefire: What We Know About the Fragile Ceasefire Between Nuclear Powers

A tense ceasefire between India and Pakistan is holding as of May 14, 2025, bringing temporary relief to a region that was on the brink of what could have escalated into the most serious conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors in nearly three decades. The agreement, reached on May 10 amid international pressure, has stopped the exchange of missiles, drone attacks, and artillery fire that claimed dozens of lives on both sides. While the guns have fallen silent for now, conflicting narratives about how the ceasefire came about and what happens next reveal the fragility of this latest attempt at peace.

The Path to Ceasefire

The recent hostilities erupted following what Indian authorities described as a deadly shooting incident involving tourists, which they attributed to Pakistan – a claim firmly rejected by Islamabad. In the days that followed, both nuclear-armed nations conducted retaliatory strikes on each other's airbases and deployed drones across their borders. The conflict quickly escalated into four days of severe clashes characterized by missile launches, drone strikes, and heavy artillery fire, particularly along the contested Line of Control in Kashmir.

As tensions mounted and fears of a potential nuclear confrontation grew, senior officials from the United States initiated contact with their counterparts in both countries, urging de-escalation. This diplomatic effort culminated in the announcement of a ceasefire on Saturday, May 10, 2025, which appeared to halt the most intense military confrontation the two countries have experienced in decades.

The violence resulted in significant casualties on both sides. Pakistan reported that Indian airstrikes caused the deaths of at least 51 individuals, including 11 soldiers and several children. India, meanwhile, claimed that at least five military personnel and 16 civilians perished in the violence. The full extent of the damage and casualties may still be emerging as both sides assess the aftermath of the brief but intense conflict.

Controversial U.S. Role in Brokering Peace

One of the most contentious aspects of the ceasefire has been the question of who facilitated it. U.S. President Donald Trump was the first to announce the agreement via his Truth Social platform, explicitly claiming that it was achieved "after a long night of discussions by the United States". Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently stated that the ceasefire was reached after he and Vice President JD Vance engaged in extensive conversations with senior officials from both nations.

However, India and Pakistan have presented conflicting accounts regarding U.S. involvement. Indian officials carefully portrayed the agreement as established "directly between the two countries," minimizing the role of the United States. India's Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar emphasized in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that it was a bilateral effort that yielded agreement on what he called a "stoppage" of firing and military action.

In contrast, Pakistani officials openly acknowledged and expressed gratitude for American mediation. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked "President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region". A Pakistani source involved in the negotiations informed CNN that the U.S., particularly Secretary Rubio, played a crucial role in finalizing the agreement.

These divergent narratives reflect longstanding differences in approach between the two South Asian powers. "India has never accepted mediation in any dispute, whether it's India-Pakistan, India-China, or others," explained Dr. Aparna Pande, a fellow for India and South Asia at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. "Conversely, Pakistan has consistently sought international mediation, as it is the only way to apply pressure on India regarding the Kashmir issue," she added.

Initial Violations and Current Status

The ceasefire faced immediate challenges following its implementation. Within hours of the announcement, both countries accused each other of violations. Residents on both sides of the Line of Control, which separates the contested territory of Kashmir, reported significant gunfire between Indian and Pakistani forces on Saturday night.

In the Poonch district of Indian-controlled Kashmir, locals described the harrowing impact of the bombardment. "Most people fled as the shells were being fired," recounted college student Sosan Zehra, who returned home on Sunday. Similarly, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir's Neelum Valley, just three kilometers from the Line of Control, residents reported ongoing gunfire and intense shelling even after the ceasefire was declared.

The Indian military took swift action in response to these alleged violations. On Sunday, the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) for India dispatched a "hotline message" to Pakistan regarding the breaches and conveyed New Delhi's intention to react if such incidents recurred. General Raj Ghai, the Indian DGMO, noted that the Indian army chief had empowered commanders to address "any type of violations" from across the borders as they deemed appropriate.

Despite these initial challenges, the ceasefire appears to be holding as of May 14, 2025, bringing relief to civilians who fled the border areas during the hostilities. The top military officials from India and Pakistan were scheduled to reconvene for discussions, indicating ongoing communication between the two sides.

Disputed Claims and Controversial Statements

Among the most contentious claims to emerge during the conflict was Pakistan's assertion that it had shot down five Indian fighter jets. In an interview with Al Jazeera shortly after the May 7 incidents, Pakistan's Minister Atullah Tar stated that, as a counteraction, they had downed five Indian jets, along with a drone and several quadcopters. Military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry later clarified that all aircraft were brought down within Indian airspace, and neither side's planes had entered the other's territory during the engagements – a claim reportedly supported by India.

British defense analyst Michael Clarke provided context to Al Jazeera, noting that there was no strategic reason for either India or Pakistan to deploy their aircraft outside their national airspace. He explained that their standoff weapons possessed sufficient range to hit their intended targets while remaining within their own airspace.

Future Prospects and Challenges

The path forward remains uncertain and fraught with diplomatic complexities. Secretary of State Rubio claimed that India and Pakistan had agreed to initiate discussions on "a wide range of issues at a neutral venue". President Trump has expressed his intention to "significantly" enhance trade with both nations and collaborate with them to explore a resolution to their long-standing dispute over Kashmir.

However, India has not acknowledged any agreement to further talks. The Indian Ministry of Information noted that there was "no decision" made for additional discussions. India has also maintained its longstanding position that disputes with Pakistan must be resolved directly between the two nations, rejecting any third-party involvement.

India appears to be taking a firmer stance moving forward. According to reports, India has decided that any act of terrorism would be treated as an act of war, signaling a toughened position against terrorist attacks. This may complicate future relations, particularly given India's persistent concerns about cross-border terrorism.

The current ceasefire represents a critical pause in hostilities between two nuclear-armed neighbors, but its durability remains uncertain. As both sides claim victory and present different narratives about how peace was achieved, the fundamental issues that have driven decades of conflict remain unresolved.

The role of international mediation, particularly by the United States under President Trump, has emerged as a point of contention that reflects the different diplomatic strategies of India and Pakistan. While the ceasefire has halted immediate violence, the path to sustained peace will require addressing deep-seated grievances and building mutual trust – a challenge that has eluded these neighbors for over seven decades.

As residents cautiously return to border areas and military forces maintain heightened alert, the world watches closely to see if this fragile peace will hold or if it represents merely another brief interlude in one of the world's most persistent and dangerous conflicts.