Cliff Notes – India-Pakistan ceasefire in Kashmir ‘isn’t long-term peace’

The US played a crucial role in mediating a ceasefire after four days of intense hostilities, but analysts caution against expecting lasting peace due to underlying tensions.
Both countries have asserted their positions, with India maintaining a stance of zero tolerance to terrorism and Pakistan demonstrating military resolve, indicating a complex relationship moving forward.

India-Pakistan ceasefire in Kashmir ‘isn’t long-term peace’

After four days of intense hostilities and concerns that India and Pakistan would engage in an all-out war, the US played a decisive active role in mediating a ceasefire between the two countries over the disputed Kashmir region.

But foreign policy experts and diplomats from both countries believe that though the de-escalation might mark the end of the two countries’ worst military confrontation in 25 years, the foreign-brokered ceasefire will not lead easily to an enduring peace.

US mediation provided a useful off-ramp for both nations, according to diplomatic analysts from both countries. “The US has played a helpful role in getting Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire,” Meera Shankar, India’s former envoy to the US, said.

“The US leveraged IMF conditionalities and much more to hasten the end of hostilities,” said Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan. “India has established a new doctrinal normal of zero tolerance to terrorism, which has garnered US acceptance.”

Both sides ‘made their point’

Analysts on the Pakistani side agreed. “Pakistan and India both needed a ceasefire but neither country wanted to be the one that asked for it first due to national pride and leaders’ egos. The US helped provide cover for the decision,” Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador and currently a senior fellow at Washington DC’s Hudson Institute, told DW.

According to Haqqani, India wanted Pakistan to know that terrorist incidents will not be ignored. Pakistan wanted to convey to India that it would not roll over and play dead. Both sides have made their point, he said.

Haqqani also believes that both countries used military escalation to test the other’s resolve and find the strengths and weaknesses of their defences. “Both realize that they cannot prevail in a war without inflicting and sustaining massive destruction,” said Haqqani.

Maleeha Lodhi, an international affairs expert and former Pakistan ambassador to the US and UN, also thought said the Trump administration’s role had been indispensable. “In all past crises between the two adversaries since 1999 the US has mediated to bring them to an end,” she said.

Lodhi thinks that easing tensions will take a longer time. “The ceasefire will hold as both countries have agreed to it and have no advantage in violating it. However, easing tensions will take much longer,” she added.

Madiha Afzal, a fellow at Brookings Institute, called the ceasefire a welcome move. “Trump manages to, as he did in his first administration, sound relatively impartial when he talks about both countries, which is significant given his relationship with Modi and the strong US-India relationship,” said Afzal. “That tone is something Pakistan appreciates.”

Afzal also highlighted that this could open the door to better Washington-Islamabad relations.