May 14, 2025
NEW DELHI – Once again, India finds itself caught in a cycle that feels all too familiar: a fragile ceasefire brokered under intense international pressure, only to be broken within hours, and then resurrected but with anxious eyes aimed skywards. The latest escalation between India and Pakistan ~ the worst in nearly three decades ~ underscores the volatility of a region where diplomatic breakthroughs are routinely sabotaged by ground realities. The promise of an immediate ceasefire, announced after four days of deadly hostilities, raised a fleeting hope. That it required late-night mediation by the United States reveals how little trust exists between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. And yet, even before the ink on that announcement could metaphorically dry, explosions reverberated across Kashmir.
Pakistan’s decision to initiate hostilities ~ first with the attack in Pahalgam and then with violations of the ceasefire it sought ~ leaves little room for moral ambiguity. India, despite having the tactical advantage on the ground, chose to agree to the truce in the interest of regional stability. Yet, within hours, fresh violence from across the border exposed the fragility of that agreement. The 66 civilian lives lost so far serve as a tragic reminder that India’s measured approach is repeatedly tested by an adversary that appears unwilling to match restraint with responsibility. This is not just about breaking an understanding; it is about broken systems. India cannot be expected to absorb repeated terror attacks on its soil ~ like the recent one targeting Hindu pilgrims in Kashmir ~ without response.
Pakistan, on the other hand, continues to deny any hand in such violence, maintaining that it only offers “moral support” to Kashmiris. But moral support doesn’t fire drones and missiles. Nor does it justify harbouring terrorist proxies. Yet military retaliation alone is not a strategy. Surgical strikes, artillery duels, and air skirmishes may offer temporary political mileage, but they do nothing to solve the core issue: the deep mistrust that now defines bilateral engagement. Dialogue ~ not war ~ must be the default. But dialogue must also be rooted in accountability, be without third-party involvement, and after iron-clad guarantees are offered on dismantling the terrorist infrastructure Pakistan has spawned. The immediate task now is to preserve the ceasefire in spirit and not just in name. That requires honest back-channel communication, robust verification mechanisms, and most importantly, political will.
The activation of hotlines and engagement between senior military officers are positive signs ~ but these tools must be used sincerely, not as diplomatic window-dressing. What’s also needed is a regional reimagining. Both countries are grappling with economic and climate crises that demand attention and resources. Escalation only emboldens extremism. The explosions in Kashmir are a grim reminder that ceasefires cannot be one-day wonders. They require courage to be sustained ~ not just on the battlefield, but in the minds of those who lead. Until that courage is found, peace in South Asia will remain an illusion constantly shattered by the echo of the next blast.