The recent military escalation between India and Pakistan, triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam attack and India’s subsequent “Operation Sindoor” airstrikes and missile exchanges, ultimately culminated in a US-brokered ceasefire. This intense period of conflict, which saw India targeting alleged “terrorist infrastructure” and Pakistan retaliating against “Indian fighter jets and military targets,” was a “brief but intense military escalation” that brought the two nuclear-armed rivals to the brink of full-scale war.

“Pakistan’s resounding success in neutralising Indian fighter jets and military targets is a matter of undeniable truth.”

Both nations immediately claimed victory following the truce, fueling a surge of nationalistic fervor on both sides of the border. While a “fragile peace” has since held along the border, with the world watching in relief, the underlying complexities of the India-Pakistan relationship, particularly Pakistan’s assertive post-conflict posture, raise significant questions about the region’s trajectory towards either meaningful dialogue or continued deadlock.

The immediate aftermath of Operation Sindoor saw Pakistan achieving a key diplomatic milestone, particularly through American mediation that averted a full-scale war. U.S. President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Vice President J.D. Vance were credited with brokering the ceasefire, with nearly 30 other countries also playing a role. Critically, President Trump’s call for a “full and immediate” ceasefire treated both nations equally, which reportedly ran counter to India’s expectations and raised Pakistan’s image on the international stage.

This effectively internationalized the Kashmir issue again, a long-standing objective for Pakistan that India had sought to keep bilateral. Pakistan publicly appreciated the efforts of President Trump and other international actors like the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates in securing the agreement.

Pakistan successfully contrasted its image as a “peace advocate” with India’s aggressive posturing, presenting itself as a responsible actor committed to stability. High-level delegations, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Army Chief Asim Munir (recently promoted to Pakistan’s only second-ever field marshal), and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, engaged in a diplomatic blitz to Azerbaijan, Turkiye, Iran, and Tajikistan, aiming to flip India’s narrative before the world. This strategic outreach also highlighted Pakistan’s capacity to wage a modern war against a larger adversary, opening new possibilities for Pakistan’s defence forces to provide training globally.

Pakistan unequivocally asserts that it achieved a resounding success against India during the May 6-7 military escalation. The spokesperson for the Foreign Office, Ambassador Shafqat Ali Khan, asserted that India’s efforts to target supposed terrorist infrastructure ultimately led to the deaths of innocent civilians and that India did not meet any of its strategic goals.

On the other hand, Pakistan contends that its “resounding success in neutralising the Indian fighter jets and military targets is a matter of undeniable truth.” Furthermore, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), stated that the Pakistan army delivered a significant defeat to India during the four-day conflict known as “Marka-e-Haq,” a victory he emphasized was accomplished against a nation seven times its size.

“President Trump’s equal call for a ceasefire effectively re-internationalized Kashmir, a long-standing Pakistani goal.”

On the diplomatic front, Pakistan believes it “outmanoeuvred India diplomatically” and that India’s efforts to isolate Pakistan failed “miserably”. Pakistan’s narrative, focusing on peace, Kashmir, and the Sindhu River, is seen as having prevailed in international media. The FO spokesperson highlighted that India “acted as a judge, jury and executioner at the same time” regarding the Pahalgam attack and did not utilize Pakistan’s offer for an independent probe. Pakistan’s mature approach, including requesting an impartial investigation and demonstrating restraint, is perceived to have earned it the respect of the international community.

A crucial aspect of this diplomatic victory, from Islamabad’s perspective, is the United States’ perceived favourability towards Pakistan, particularly President Donald Trump’s reiterated offer to mediate the Kashmir crisis, which Pakistan has always desired. Trump’s pledge to increase trade with both nations and the announcement of talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site further bolster this view. The US “hyphenation” of Pakistan with India, a status India has tried to shed, is also seen as a win for Islamabad, granting it regional parity.

Furthermore, the global interest garnered by Pakistan’s aerial performance, especially using Chinese platforms, is expected to foster closer military ties with China, which Pakistan views as a setback for India. The visit of Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir to America, meeting President Trump, was also cited as a significant diplomatic victory, indicating the world’s recognition of Pakistan’s importance in combating terrorism.

Pakistan firmly rejects India’s efforts to create a “new normal” in its bilateral relations via military actions. The spokesperson for Pakistan’s Foreign Office labeled India’s assertions of “nuclear blackmail” as a “deceptive and self-serving narrative” meant to obscure its own escalatory tendencies. In contrast, Pakistan claims that its conventional strengths deterred India, and that the only acceptable “normal” in bilateral relations is based on respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as a commitment to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. Pakistan believes it has established its own “new normal plus” with massive retaliation, signaling that it will respond with “resolve and firepower” to any Indian aggression, calling India’s policy of attacking periodically without proportional retaliation “dangerously delusional”.

A major issue raised by Pakistan is India’s position on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Pakistan voiced its “disapproval of the ‘misplaced assertions’ made by the Indian leadership concerning the Indus Waters Treaty,” arguing that India’s choice to suspend the treaty demonstrates a “blatant disregard for the integrity of international agreements” and undermines a crucial element of regional collaboration.

PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari criticized Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s threat to cut off Pakistan’s water supply, cautioning that if India “casts an evil eye on the Indus waters,” Pakistan would “engage in another war and emerge victorious once more,” even asserting that Pakistan would seize control of all six rivers if India failed to comply with the treaty and international law.

Despite the ceasefire, Pakistan harbors significant concerns about India’s potential to exploit the pause in “Operation Sindoor” to harm Pakistan by supporting Pakistan-based militant groups. Pakistan believes that militant groups targeting it, including sub-nationalists and religiously inspired militants, thrive on “crucial support from countries hostile to Pakistan, specifically India”.

“Pakistan rejects India’s ‘new normal,’ establishing instead a ‘new normal plus’ of retaliation and deterrence.”

Historical evidence is cited, such as India’s consistent support for Baloch sub-nationalists like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF). The arrest of Indian intelligence officer Kulbhushan Jadhav in 2017 reportedly divulged details of Indian assistance, including massive funds, weapons supply, and facilitation of movement for Baloch militant groups, primarily through informal financial channels and the Indian consulate in Zahedan, Iran.

Furthermore, Pakistan alleges Indian intelligence support for religiously inspired terrorist groups, particularly the Afghanistan-based Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Evidence from the arrest of TTP commander Latif Mehsud in 2014 reportedly detailed Indian provision of funds, weapons, and training to the TTP through Indian consulates in Afghanistan. The TTP’s statement expressing “grief” over civilian deaths in Indian attacks during Operation Sindoor, while condemning Pakistan’s military, suggests potential links. Pakistan also anticipates that the Afghan Taliban supremo Hibatullah’s order restricting the TTP from using Afghan soil against Pakistan might encourage pro-India TTP elements to seek greater support from India.

In spite of the recent halt in military actions, Pakistan remains vocal about its dedication to “peace, regional stability, and engaging in meaningful discussions to resolve all unresolved matters.” This sentiment is echoed by an “expressed interest among Pakistan’s top civil-military leaders to resolve issues with India, provided New Delhi is genuinely prepared for meaningful dialogue”. A potential avenue for such engagement has already been suggested, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing that both Indian and Pakistani governments have “agreed to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site,” which could include the Indus Waters Treaty, terrorism, and Kashmir. India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, too, has underscored the importance of dialogue, even in times of conflict.

However, the prospect of a productive dialogue remains fraught with significant challenges due to Pakistan’s firm stance on several critical issues and its deep-seated suspicions regarding India’s actions. A significant issue of disagreement revolves around the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Pakistan has expressed strong “disapproval of the ‘misplaced assertions’ by the Indian leadership concerning the Indus Waters Treaty,” considering India’s choice to suspend the treaty as a “clear violation of the integrity of international treaties” and a risk to regional cooperation.

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), intensified the condemnation by criticizing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s threat to cut off Pakistan’s water supply and cautioning that if India were to “cast an evil eye on the Indus waters, ‘we will fight another war and defeat them again’.” He also stated that if India fails to comply with international law and the treaty, Pakistan would assert its rights to all six rivers.

Looking forward, the end of hostilities has not addressed the deep-rooted issues that continue to affect India-Pakistan relations. Pakistan considers the ceasefire a significant diplomatic achievement, especially in light of President Trump’s proposal to mediate on the Kashmir issue and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s declaration of discussions on “a broad set of issues at a neutral venue,” which encompasses the Indus Waters Treaty and terrorism.

“India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty undermines international agreements and risks further conflict.”

Nevertheless, Pakistan strongly disputes India’s “misdirected claims” about the Indus Waters Treaty and its threats to cut off water supply, cautioning that this could lead to further conflict. Concerns also persist in Pakistan regarding India’s alleged support for various militant groups, including Baloch sub-nationalists and the TTP, necessitating a three-dimensional response strategy focusing on combating terrorist financing, securing borders, and addressing local grievances. While dialogue remains important, as underscored by Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, the core Kashmir issue remains unresolved, leaving residents on both sides to fear that the “guns will roar again,” emphasizing that “lasting peace cannot prevail without its resolution.”

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.