Peace Deal: Assessing the Ceasefire’s Future

The recent ceasefire between India and Pakistan has been met with cautious optimism, but history casts a long shadow over its tenability. Both nations have claimed victory—India highlighting Pakistan’s return to the negotiating table, and Pakistan asserting its commitment to peace—yet the reality is more nuanced. The ceasefire, brokered under international pressure, notably from the U.S., is fragile. This recalls the U.S.-brokered cessation during the 1999 Kargil War, where Pakistan, under global scrutiny, withdrew—only to later resume its asymmetric tactics. Temporary halts, without lasting accountability, often prove futile. Past agreements have collapsed amid mutual accusations of violations, and the latest truce is already under strain. India’s claims of Pakistani breaches within hours of the deal met with Pakistan’s denials of them, calling the allegations “baseless.” This pattern of denial and blame is familiar, raising doubts about the ceasefire’s durability.

Pakistan’s track record of reneging on agreements undermines trust. This also brings to mind the cyclical nature of these confrontations: ceasefires are declared, tensions simmer, and eventually, hostilities resume. Islamabad’s reliance on militant proxies in Kashmir, a strategy it has never fully abandoned, further erodes confidence. India, wary of Pakistan’s intentions, has adopted a hardened stance, combining military deterrence with diplomatic isolation. The situation, of course, highlights India’s growing global clout, which it leverages to pressure Pakistan, but also notes the risks of overreach—especially as the U.S. pushes for a grand bargain in Kashmir, potentially forcing concessions New Delhi isn’t prepared to make.

The ceasefire’s survival hinges on two factors: Pakistan’s willingness to curb cross-border militancy and India’s ability to resist escalation. So far, neither seems assured. Pakistan’s military establishment, which ultimately controls Kashmir policy, has yet to demonstrate a genuine shift. Without dismantling terrorist infrastructure, any peace will be illusory. India, meanwhile, faces domestic pressure to respond forcefully to any provocation. Prime Minister Modi’s government cannot afford to appear weak, especially after framing the ceasefire as a strategic win.

The international community’s role is pivotal but inconsistent. While the U.S. and others advocate for dialogue, their focus is often short-term, driven by geopolitical expediency rather than lasting resolution. Without sustained engagement, external pressure may fade, leaving the region vulnerable to another cycle of violence.

In the end, the ceasefire is a temporary reprieve, not a solution. For it to hold, Pakistan must move beyond rhetoric and act decisively against militants, while India must balance firmness with pragmatism. The alternative—a return to bloodshed—is all too familiar, and neither nation can afford it. But as past failures show, peace in Kashmir remains elusive, and scepticism is warranted until actions match words