India and Pakistan Reach Uneasy Ceasefire Over Kashmir After Days of Escalating Conflict

India and Pakistan Reach Uneasy Ceasefire Over Kashmir After Days of Escalating Conflict

After four days of intense military exchanges including airstrikes, missile attacks, and drone warfare that killed dozens, India and Pakistan agreed to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire over Kashmir, though conflicting accounts of how the deal was reached and reports of early violations highlight the fragility of this uneasy truce.

A tense ceasefire between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan appears to be holding, days after the most intense fighting between the two nations in decades threatened to spiral into a wider conflict. The truce, announced on Saturday following U.S.-brokered negotiations, has brought temporary relief to the region despite early violations and conflicting accounts of how the deal was struck.

The ceasefire comes after four days of escalating military exchanges that began when India launched airstrikes on Wednesday against what it claimed were "terrorist camps" in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India's "Operation Sindoor" was in retaliation for an April 22 attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, that killed 26 Hindu tourists—the deadliest assault on Indian civilians in the region in over 15 years.

"After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire," President Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social platform Saturday. The agreement took effect at 5 p.m. Indian Standard Time (7:30 a.m. ET) on Saturday.

According to Indian military officials, the breakthrough came after Pakistan sent a "hotline" message to its Indian counterparts seeking communications. India's director general of military operations, Lt. Gen. Rajiv Ghai, said that during a call held at 3:35 p.m. local time on Saturday, a ceasefire agreement was reached. He added that further discussions would be held to "discuss the modalities that would enable the longevity" of the agreement.

Pakistan confirmed reaching out but provided a different version of events, stating it contacted international intermediaries regarding a ceasefire. A Pakistani official involved in the talks told CNN it was the United States making crucial diplomatic calls on Saturday.


"What the hell just happened to the ceasefire?" - mar Abdullah, chief minister of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on X


Following India's initial strikes, Pakistan launched "Operation Bunyan Marsoos," targeting Indian military installations. Both sides claimed to have intercepted most incoming projectiles but acknowledged some strikes caused damage. The rapid escalation included the use of fighter jets, missiles, drones, and artillery, causing at least 60 fatalities according to various reports.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement that he and Vice President JD Vance had engaged with political and military leadership in both countries to secure the agreement. China's foreign minister Wang Yi also spoke separately with officials from both nations, expressing Beijing's support for a ceasefire.

While Pakistan publicly praised U.S. involvement in brokering the truce, India has downplayed it, insisting the agreement was worked out "directly between the two countries." India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar confirmed the ceasefire in a post on X but made no mention of U.S. mediation, stating: "India has consistently maintained a firm and uncompromising stance against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It will continue to do so."

Hours after the ceasefire was announced, reports emerged of violations. Omar Abdullah, chief minister of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, posted on X: "What the hell just happened to the ceasefire?" as explosions were heard across Srinagar, the region's capital. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told reporters that Pakistan had violated the truce repeatedly and that Indian armed forces would provide "an adequate and appropriate response." Pakistani Information Minister Attaullah Tarar dismissed these accusations as "baseless."

Despite the cease-fire, other punitive measures remain in place. Four government sources told Reuters that India's suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, a critical water-sharing pact mediated by the World Bank that ensures water for 80% of Pakistan's agriculture, will continue. Other retaliatory measures, including closure of land borders, suspension of trade, and pauses on visa issuance, also remain in effect.

The conflict has brought renewed international attention to Kashmir, a territory claimed in its entirety by both countries but divided by the Line of Control since 1947. In his ceasefire announcement, Trump offered to work with both nations "to see if, after a 'thousand years,' a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir."

Pope Leo also addressed the ceasefire in his first Sunday address as Pontiff, delivering a "message of peace" to crowds at St. Peter's Square: "I welcomed the announcement of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and I hope that through negotiations we can reach a lasting agreement."

While financial markets in both countries responded positively to news of the ceasefire—with Indian stocks logging their best day in four years and Pakistan shares surging—residents near the conflict zones remain cautious. Saima Qazi, who lives near the Line of Control, expressed relief at the ceasefire but acknowledged she is not yet completely at ease given the long history of conflict in the region.

For the immediate future, all eyes remain on whether this fragile peace will hold as both nuclear powers maintain their longstanding positions while stepping back from the brink of wider conflict.

Sources: CNN, Reuters, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, TIME, CNBC, Lowy Institute, ASPI

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

The Kashmir ceasefire represents a necessary but insufficient first step in addressing a complex conflict that requires sustained multilateral engagement rather than simplistic claims of diplomatic victory. While emergency diplomacy prevented immediate escalation, the fundamental issues remain unresolved as civilian populations continue suffering under militarization, human rights abuses, and growing nationalist rhetoric from both governments. No lasting peace can be achieved without addressing Kashmir's right to self-determination and the protection of minority rights in both countries.

The Trump administration's transactional approach to foreign policy creates the illusion of progress while neglecting the structural causes of conflict, including water resource disputes, religious nationalism, and nuclear proliferation concerns. Meaningful resolution requires addressing climate insecurity in the region, demilitarizing border areas, and establishing international monitoring mechanisms with UN involvement. The administration's willingness to downplay human rights concerns in its relationships with both nations undermines prospects for lasting peace, as does its unbalanced approach that fails to hold both sides equally accountable. Without addressing root causes like poverty and political disenfranchisement that fuel extremism, this ceasefire merely represents a temporary pause in a cycle of violence that will inevitably resume.

Conservative View

President Trump's decisive leadership and diplomatic intervention prevented a potentially catastrophic war between nuclear powers, demonstrating America's indispensable role in maintaining global stability. While previous administrations hesitated to engage directly in this longstanding conflict, Trump's willingness to mediate personally and broker a ceasefire showcases the effectiveness of his "peace through strength" foreign policy approach. The crisis stemmed directly from Pakistan's continued harboring of terrorist elements that target Indian civilians, a pattern that must end for lasting regional peace.

The swift diplomatic resolution through direct engagement with both nations' leaders represents a clear foreign policy success that has saved countless lives while preserving America's strategic relationships in South Asia. Trump's direct communication style and personal relationships with world leaders allowed him to cut through diplomatic obstacles where conventional approaches would have failed. This achievement stands in stark contrast to the previous administration's passive approach to international conflicts and reinforces that American leadership remains essential in addressing critical security challenges. By securing this agreement without committing American military resources, Trump protected U.S. interests while demonstrating that diplomatic engagement backed by credible strength can resolve even the most entrenched conflicts.

Common Ground

Both conservatives and progressives recognize that preventing armed conflict between nuclear powers serves everyone's interests and that continued diplomatic engagement is preferable to military confrontation. Citizens in both India and Pakistan deserve safety and stability without the constant threat of violence, and the international community has a responsibility to support peaceful resolution of disputes that could otherwise escalate into catastrophic conflict.

Americans across the political spectrum understand that regional stability in South Asia is crucial for global security and economic development. Supporting transparency, communication channels between militaries, and confidence-building measures benefits both Indian and Pakistani civilians while protecting international security interests. Both sides acknowledge that extremism and terrorism must be addressed through comprehensive strategies that include security cooperation, development initiatives, and political dialogue. Despite different approaches, both perspectives recognize that establishing lasting peace requires patience, ongoing diplomatic efforts, and giving the people of Kashmir a voice in determining their future.