Understanding 2025 India-Pakistan Ceasefire and Its Global Implications
- TPP
- May 15
- 4 min read
The concept of a ceasefire plays a pivotal role in global conflict management. Defined by The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law as an agreement that regulates the termination of military activity "for a given length of time in a given area," a ceasefire signifies a temporary suspension of hostilities, not a permanent resolution or end to conflict.
In early 2025, India and Pakistan—two nuclear-armed neighbors with a turbulent history—agreed to a ceasefire following a sharp escalation of military tensions. Despite its apparent significance, this truce has been widely described as fragile. The causes for concern stem from both historical context and contemporary geopolitics, including outside involvement by global powers such as the United States.
This article dives into the key elements of the 2025 ceasefire, its legal foundations, political reactions, and the broader implications for India-Pakistan relations—particularly in relation to the long-standing Kashmir dispute.
What Is a Ceasefire?
A ceasefire is a strategic and humanitarian measure, often seen as a stepping stone between active conflict and peace negotiations. While it halts military actions temporarily, it does not signify a legal end to war. Ceasefires can be either formally documented or based on verbal agreements, and they may arise from bilateral talks or third-party interventions.
As per international law:
Ceasefires address the timing of commencement, defining the exact moment hostilities are to stop.
They clarify prohibited acts—both military and non-military, including propaganda.
They may involve the physical separation of armed forces, the delineation of ceasefire lines or buffer zones.
Key mechanisms like verification, supervision, and monitoring are crucial, often overseen by UN bodies or joint commissions.
Other aspects may include the repatriation of prisoners, return of displaced people, and compensation for losses.
Under the Hague Regulations (1910):
If a ceasefire doesn't specify duration, parties may resume operations with proper warning (Article 36).
A serious breach allows for denouncement and the resumption of hostilities (Article 40).
Actions by "private persons" violating the ceasefire require punishment or compensation (Article 41).
The 2025 India-Pakistan Ceasefire: What Happened?
After a sharp increase in border skirmishes, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on a Saturday afternoon in 2025. According to India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) from both nations communicated directly:
“The DGMO of Pakistan called up DGMO (of India) at 3.35 pm. They agreed that both sides will stop all firing and military action from land, air, and sea from 5 pm onwards.”
Despite the agreement, drone sightings and explosions were reported in border areas the same evening—highlighting the fragile nature of this truce from its very inception.
Why Is the 2025 Ceasefire Considered “Fragile”?
Several factors contribute to the ceasefire's fragility:
Historical Distrust: India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars and engaged in countless border skirmishes since Partition in 1947, particularly over Kashmir.
Violation Risks: Ceasefire agreements inherently lack legal weight. International law permits resumption of hostilities if serious violations occur or if private actors initiate hostilities.
Unclear Terms: If the ceasefire's duration and enforcement mechanisms are not clearly outlined, violations are likely.
Incidents on the Ground: Reports of drone activity and explosions near the border immediately after the ceasefire raise doubts about mutual commitment.
The U.S. Role and India’s Stance on Mediation
Former President Donald Trump claimed that the United States played a critical role in brokering this ceasefire. Trump highlighted efforts by Vice-President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who allegedly engaged in extensive talks with Indian counterparts.
Rubio also suggested the idea of U.S.-facilitated peace talks between India and Pakistan at a neutral venue. However, India outright rejected the proposal.
Why India Rejects External Mediation:
India holds an unyielding position on the Kashmir dispute, strongly opposing third-party involvement.
The U.S.’s historical role at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)—where it adopted a perceived pro-Pakistan stance—left deep scars.
India's referral of the first Kashmir war (1947-48) to the UN, under Lord Mountbatten’s advice, backfired as the Truman administration deferred to British interests in shaping UNSC debates.
As a result, most Indians with foreign policy awareness remain deeply skeptical of any multilateral or foreign interventions regarding Kashmir.
Domestic Political Reactions in India
Reactions within India to the 2025 ceasefire were mixed but cautious:
Government circles emphasized the agreement as a step toward border stability but reaffirmed that it did not signal any softening of India’s stance on cross-border terrorism or Kashmir.
Opposition leaders and strategic analysts expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in terms, fearing a potential repeat of past disappointments.
The media and public sentiment were generally skeptical, especially in border states that frequently bear the brunt of ceasefire violations.
Long-Term Implications for India-Pakistan Relations
The 2025 ceasefire may temporarily reduce military tension, but its long-term impact hinges on several unresolved issues:
Kashmir remains the core issue. Any sustainable peace depends on a breakthrough here—which appears unlikely given both nations' hardline positions.
Trust-building: Without mechanisms for consistent communication and enforcement, this truce may only serve as a temporary pause.
Geopolitical dynamics: External actors like the U.S. may continue attempting involvement, further complicating bilateral diplomacy.
The 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire serves as a reminder that peace on paper does not equal peace on the ground. It exemplifies a tenuous truce shaped by deep-seated distrust, domestic politics, and external interference.
While ceasefires are essential tools in conflict management, their success depends on clear terms, mutual trust, and enforceable mechanisms—elements largely absent in this case.
As long as the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved and third-party intercessions remain unwelcome, such ceasefires will likely continue to be fragile interludes in a long, troubled history of conflict.
compare the outcomes 1971 war and 2025 Operation