In the summer of 1999, Indian and Pakistani troops clashed in the heights of Kargil district in Indian-administered Kashmir. After Pakistani forces occupied Indian positions across the contested border, known as the Line of Control (LoC), India launched military operations to reclaim the posts—leading to two months of intense fighting in which more than 520 Indian soldiers and an estimated 2,000 to 4,000 Pakistani soldiers died.
U.S. President Bill Clinton ultimately brokered a tense withdrawal that restored a fragile calm along the LoC. For more than two decades, that uneasy peace was punctuated by sporadic skirmishes, but India and Pakistan have avoided outright war.
This month, the subcontinent was jolted back to the brink as India and Pakistan launched missiles, drones, and artillery fire in a dramatic escalation—this time pushing well beyond Kashmir. The latest round of conflict ended abruptly last weekend, and once again, U.S. intervention seemed to pull back the two nuclear-armed rivals. U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of a “FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE,” however, conceals a more precarious reality.
This cease-fire between India and Pakistan represents not a resolution but a perilous and temporary pause in their long-standing hostilities. Unlike the 1999 Kargil episode, which reset the escalation ladder and ushered in years of relative stability, the latest truce has codified a more dangerous baseline. Both countries now claim victory and remain locked in incompatible narratives: India says its BrahMos missile strikes forced Pakistan to seek peace, while Pakistan credits its nuclear signaling and diplomatic maneuvering.
This disconnect, coupled with compressed decision timelines and technological advances such as supersonic missiles and drone swarms, has created a scenario in which future conflicts between India and Pakistan will likely start at higher levels of escalation. Meanwhile, China has emerged as the primary beneficiary of the conflict, testing its military hardware (and even securing trade deals) while India remains distracted.
With nationalist fervor inflamed in both countries and New Delhi’s partners conspicuously silent, the cease-fire has done little to address the underlying grievances between India and Pakistan or to establish new guardrails. Instead, it has set the stage for future crises to erupt with greater speed and intensity. South Asia now stands precariously balanced between an unstable peace and catastrophic war.
Unlike Clinton’s intervention in the 1999 Kargil conflict, the current truce between India and Pakistan raised the escalation ladder’s starting rung. This cease-fire offers a fleeting respite, but it doesn’t bring an end to hostilities. It has merely cemented a new normal; the next crisis will likely erupt faster, escalate more intensely, and risk nuclear exchange sooner. The recent episode entrenches dangerous precedents.
The latest India-Pakistan crisis skipped escalation steps with alarming ease. Diplomatic threats jumped directly to cross-border strikes within days, while Pakistan engaged in nuclear posturing by announcing the meeting of its nuclear command authority. The clashes ended via a U.S.-brokered cease-fire on May 10, after Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance mediated urgent talks between the two countries. Both India and Pakistan have declared victory, but their opposing interpretations of the military operations reveal a dangerous lack of shared strategic understanding.
Unlike the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which established mutual red lines between nuclear adversaries, the India-Pakistan conflict has only deepened mistrust between the two neighbors. India insists that its strikes compelled Pakistan to seek a truce, while Islamabad frames the cease-fire as a triumph of its nuclear signaling and military resolve. Pakistan thus claims restored deterrence, while India insists that the rules have “irrevocably changed,” meaning that New Delhi will now respond militarily to provocations, changing escalation dynamics. This divergence ensures that there are graver risks of miscalculation for the next crisis.
New Delhi’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and punitive economic measures against Islamabad, which followed the deadly terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir in late April, remain in place after the cease-fire—institutionalizing a new baseline of peacetime hostility. The rapid escalation from diplomatic tensions to cross-border strikes, including the debut of India’s BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles against Pakistani air bases, demonstrates how quickly the two countries can skirt the threshold of conventional war.
The BrahMos, a joint Indian-Russian product that can strike deep into Pakistani territory with pinpoint accuracy at Mach 3 speeds, is a technological leap that lowers the barrier for preemptive strikes. It signifies a doctrinal shift: These weapons compressed decision-making windows, leaving Pakistan’s military “stunned,” according to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Yet India’s military action lacked a coherent strategic goal beyond revenge for the April attack in Pahalgam, mirroring Israel’s doctrine of treating terrorism as an act of war. It did not attempt to establish deterrence or alter Pakistan’s strategic calculus, prioritizing rhetorical point-scoring instead. This approach risks normalizing limited conflicts while failing to address root causes, as evidenced by Pakistan’s unchanged support for jihadi groups targeting India.
Modi’s domestic credibility now hinges on an unsustainable balancing act. His government claims that the military operation—named Sindoor—remains “active,” framing the cease-fire with Pakistan as a tactical pause rather than a resolution. However, the U.S.-brokered truce that Trump reiterated publicly has undermined Modi’s strongman image; after all, the U.S. president taking credit for the cease-fire contradicts India’s long-standing policy of strictly bilateral engagement with Pakistan. Modi’s assertions clash with Trump’s claim of U.S. mediation, a political third rail in New Delhi, and expose fissures in U.S.-India relations.
Though Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked Trump for “regional peace,” officials from India’s Ministry of External Affairs, without issuing any official rebuttal, held that the deal was directly negotiated. This dissonance matters. And Trump’s subsequent offer to further mediate over Kashmir, alongside Rubio’s assertion that broader talks would follow at a neutral venue, has left Modi diplomatically cornered.
For a leader who has built his brand on nationalist resolve, the perception of external mediation is politically toxic, fueling accusations of weakness from Modi’s Hindu-nationalist base.
India’s conundrum in Pakistan remains intractable. Despite Modi’s claims of unimaginable damage inflicted on terrorist camps during Operation Sindoor, his narrative of decisive victory clashes with on-the-ground realities. Within minutes of Modi’s public address on Monday following the cease-fire, suspected Pakistani drones were seen all over northern India, bringing India’s air defenses into play. Moreover, Pakistan shows no intent to dismantle Kashmir-centric jihadi groups, such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
According to the Indian narrative, its forces were convincingly blasting the Pakistani military—which fails to explain why New Delhi abruptly agreed to a cease-fire. Even former Indian Army chiefs were disappointed by the sudden announcement, and Modi’s supporters have lambasted the truce as a surrender. Some of them went after the Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and his family online, but no minister in Modi’s government has criticized the trolls or supported the country’s top career diplomat.
Hindu-nationalist voices, including leaders of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, have demanded the annexation of Pakistani-administered Kashmir and the elimination of terrorist leaders such as Hafiz Saeed, who co-founded Lashkar-e-Taiba. Social media platforms, flooded with calls for “decisive victory,” reflect a public appetite for escalation that constrains Modi’s diplomatic flexibility.
Meanwhile, Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir has emerged stronger from the crisis, burnishing his and the military’s domestic reputations by touting the cease-fire as a triumph of robust military preparedness, nuclear deterrence, and diplomatic outreach. His ability to secure U.S. intervention, despite India’s objections, has reinforced Pakistan’s relevance in great-power politics, even as its economy teeters and its political system remains in disarray.
Instead of the global focus being on regional terrorism, as Modi has wanted for more than a decade, the world is now discussing the nuclear threat and the Kashmir problem. In this way, it is a win for Munir and the Pakistan Army.
Indeed, the interplay of compressed decision-making timelines, social media-fueled nationalism, and advancing missile technologies has created a crisis environment where escalation could outpace global diplomacy. India’s BrahMos strikes, while demonstrating military prowess, set a precedent for rapid and high-impact engagements that leave little room for de-escalation. Pakistan’s retaliatory drone attacks against Indian border posts further illustrate how emerging technologies lower the threshold for conflict.
The absence of a shared nuclear doctrine compounds these risks. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet framework during the Cold War, India and Pakistan lack clear protocols for communication during crises, increasing the likelihood of misinterpreted signals. With both nations keen to either stress or deny the significance of nuclear weapons, the region remains one misstep away from catastrophe.
Ultimately, China has emerged as the conflict’s primary beneficiary. Its military hardware, including radar systems and surface-to-air missiles deployed by Pakistan, performed effectively during the skirmishes with India, providing real-world validation of Chinese defense exports. Pakistan deployed Chinese weapons systems and platforms against top-notch Western equipment employed by India. According to Pakistan, it used Chinese fighter jets to shoot down some Indian fighter jets, including the 4.5-generation French Rafale aircraft. (India has neither confirmed nor denied these reports.)
Notably absent from the crisis was the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or the Quad, the Indo-Pacific partnership comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. Despite its stated focus on countering Chinese assertiveness, the Quad failed to coordinate a response or offer India strategic backing, revealing the grouping’s limitations in addressing acute regional crises.
Furthermore, India’s preoccupation with Pakistan has diverted attention from its maritime competition with China, allowing Beijing to consolidate influence in the Indian Ocean. India will have to reorient the forces earmarked for its border with China since 2020, a shift that will reduce India’s salience in the West as a natural counter to China. Every rupee that India spends on Pakistan is a rupee less spent for bridging its gap with China.
The India-Pakistan cease-fire is fraught with unresolved grievances and strategic ambiguities. Modi’s domestic vulnerabilities, China’s gains, and the Quad’s irrelevance underscore the systemic implications of the recent crisis. The supersonic missiles India fired into Pakistan, the retaliatory drone swarms, and the social media-fueled ultranationalism in both nations all reveal a crisis management playbook primed for failure. South Asia’s strategic poise seems to hang by a thread.
As both India and Pakistan recalibrate their militaries for faster, technology-driven conflicts, the international community must grapple with an uncomfortable truth: Peace in a nuclearized South Asia is not a product of strategic wisdom but of fortuitous circumstances and international scrutiny.
When Clinton intervened in Kargil in 1999, he lowered the escalation ladder. Trump, by contrast, has left it leaning against a powder keg. The current truce between India and Pakistan resolves nothing; both countries still expect escalation. The next spark—whether a terrorist attack, a water dispute, or an errant drone—could ignite a firestorm that cannot be contained; the next crisis will almost certainly make recent events seem like a prelude.
The post India-Pakistan Cease-Fire Cements a Dangerous Baseline appeared first on Foreign Policy.
