The world heaved a sigh of relief when the President of the United States (US), Donald Trump, brokered a peace agreement, putting an ceasefire to the four-day war between India and Pakistan. Much to the world’s surprise, Trump, who had earlier opted to sit out this crisis, suddenly switched to becoming an arbitrator. As a backdrop, the escalation was the result of the militant attacks in Pahalgam, which claimed 26 lives.

Operation Bunyan un Marsoos proved to be an impressive show of Chinese firepower coupled with Pakistan’s aerial prowess.

India blamed Pakistan for sponsoring terrorism. Pakistan, while condemning the Pahalgam attack, vehemently denied any involvement and offered bilateral dialogue as well as third-party investigations, which India ignored. As the blame game and war mongering peaked, India commenced ‘Operation Sindoor.

This operation targeted nine alleged terrorist infrastructure sites inside Pakistan, in which 36 casualties occurred in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Furthermore, Indian jets targeted four air bases inside major cities of Pakistan. Although all jets were intercepted, the temperatures across the border rose and gave birth to Pakistan’s response, Operation ‘Bunyan un Marsoos’, translated as ‘a wall of steel’.

This ceasefire came after Pakistan shot down “three French made Rafales, one MiG-29, and one Russian made SU-30” in operation ‘Bunyan un Marsoos’. The French believe at least one Rafale was shot down. To know the US perspective on this, the author asked a master’s student at the University of Akron if the US would choose a side in this scenario. To which he replied that the current US intervention as an arbitrator is not a surprise, it only implies that there are greater US business and trade interests involved. Further stating that “The US will choose to re-posture itself for enhancing economic ties with both nations at a time when cheap labour is needed and the tariff war with China continues.”

Trump claims to have achieved a ceasefire by providing trade incentives, a claim denied by India.

However, at this point, it is pertinent to mention that Pakistan’s airpower was augmented by the Chinese J-10 jets and PL-15 missiles. This has established China as not only Pakistan’s all-weather “Iron brother”, but has also demonstrated China’s expert capability as a weapons manufacturer. The fall of jets, French Rafales, Russian SU-30s and MiGs, followed by the consequent shooting of more than 25 Israeli-made Harop drones by Pakistan, has established China on the world map as a leading weapons manufacturer.

Operation Bunyan un Marsoos proved to be an impressive show of Chinese firepower coupled with Pakistan’s aerial prowess. It can thus be rightly assumed that under the current circumstances, the world will inadvertently avoid any tiff with the “Iron brothers”. Consequently, the trade talks between the US and China to cut down on tariffs, happening right after the ceasefire, came as no surprise. The reason for brokering a ceasefire, given by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was that India was ready to stop the fighting.

A student from CASE Western Reserve University was asked if the implicit Chinese support played any role in the sudden brokering of the ceasefire by the US? To which he replied, “The US looks towards Pakistan and India now for the provision of cheap labour, we have to jump in as a referee between them, war was bad for business.” This statement reiterates the fact that Trump claims to have achieved a ceasefire by providing trade incentives, a claim denied by India. Thus, as Adam Smith, a famous classical economist, states, “self-interest leads to societal welfare,” it seems that the US self-interest has eventually silenced the guns for now.

India considers a ceasefire as only a ‘pause’ in its military action.

A month has gone by, and India still refuses to acknowledge the number of jets that were downed in the skirmish. International media have condemned the Indian media for misinformation overload. The New York Times their news anchors are “jingoistic” cheerleaders for war. Meanwhile, frequent skirmishes still continue along the Line of Control (LoC), and the proscribed militant outfit Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), responsible for the unrest in Balochistan, has pledged allegiance to India.

India adamantly refuses to engage in dialogue over Kashmir, snatching Kashmiris of their right to self-determination that was granted by the United Nations charter of 1949. Furthermore, India considers a ceasefire as only a ‘pause’ in its military action. Modi went further on to state, “Terror and talks can’t go together. Nor can terror and trade”.

The road to enduring peace seems like a Utopian construct.

Given this political deadlock and India’s rigidity, the road to enduring peace seems like a Utopian construct. India needs to understand that when the sovereignty of a nuclear-armed nation is threatened, repercussions are bound to follow. For peace and sanity to prevail, bilateral talks need to be initiated such that the current ceasefire stops hanging by a precipice and a mutual solution to cross-border terrorism is attained.

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.