.jpg "Ceasefire - 1")
The announcement of a ceasefire late in the evening on Saturday took most Indians by surprise. Many citizens and analysts alike believed that India had gained the upper hand in the recent hostilities and should have pursued the momentum to secure more concrete military, strategic, and psychological gains. For a nation long aggrieved by the acts of terrorism originating from Pakistan, the anticipation was for a more lasting solution, not a premature termination of hostilities.
The Indian strikes initiated on the morning of May 8, under the aegis of Operation Sindoor, definitely indicated a notable transformation in India's strategic stance. These were not token gestures of retribution but deep-penetration strikes into the Pakistani heartland, involving air- and ground-launched weapon systems operating with precision and speed. The strikes clearly demonstrated India’s capability to dominate the Pakistani military in the entire spectrum of operations, achieving tactical surprise and operational superiority. This escalation represented a new normal — a departure from the traditional restraint that New Delhi has often shown in the past. It also called the Pakistani nuclear bluff and demonstrated that there is space in the conventional domain to carry out punitive operations.
Mission accomplished, or perhaps not
Nevertheless, critical questions remained unanswered at the time of the declaration of the ceasefire. Did Operation Sindoor fulfil the objectives set by the Indian government? Did the military establishment of Pakistan and its deeply rooted terror infrastructure experience a lasting impact? Has the strategic calculus in Rawalpindi, the true centre of power in Pakistan, been sufficiently disrupted to prevent future terrorist attacks like Uri and Pahalgam?
For the majority of observers, including the least informed, the answer to the above, at the time of the ceasefire declaration, would undoubtedly be ambivalent, if not a big no. While Pakistan’s military has certainly suffered a blow to its prestige, particularly in the eyes of its own people and international watchers, it has not suffered a defeat — either in material terms or in its morale. The source of terror, the Pakistani Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), remain structurally intact and ideologically unrepentant. If anything, they may now feel like wounded animals, humiliated and more dangerous, driven by revenge rather than remorse.
Nevertheless, despite the national sentiment and the urgency to sustain the momentum. India's decision to accept the truce was judicious and reflective of its position as a responsible nation. A prolonged conflict is not conducive to the long-term interests of the two nuclear-armed neighbours and the world at large.
Ceasefire breached: Duplicity and dysfunction in Pakistan
The ceasefire violations by Pakistan barely two hours after the truce was announced, however, validate the combative Indian national sentiment. Instead of appearing dissuaded, Pakistan seems invigorated, perhaps testing Indian resolve or trying to provoke a miscalculated response. If the breaking of the ceasefire is deliberate, as many suspect, then it reflects not only duplicity but a strategic gamble.
A further persuasive argument is that Pakistan's civil-military command and control are markedly fractured. Rogue elements, both within terrorist organisations and the military, may be operating semi-autonomously. In a broken system, directives from the civilian administration or from the top frequently do not disseminate properly. There is thus a possibility that the violation of the ceasefire may be the handiwork of such rogue elements. Furthermore, although a total halt of hostilities may be achievable at the international border, it seems difficult along the Line of Control in the immediate future.
India’s strategic path ahead: Caution, resolve, and readiness
Given these complexities, India's current cautious stance, as articulated by its foreign secretary, is both appropriate and prudent. Knee-jerk escalation serves no purpose if the long-term objective is to force behavioural change in Pakistan. An impetuous or overwhelming immediate response may jeopardise the international goodwill that India has fostered, as well as the legitimacy of its recognised right to self-defence by the global community.
That said, India must not be complacent and have misguided optimism from this ceasefire. A wait-and-watch approach must be grounded on explicit red lines. If ceasefire violations persist or are officially endorsed by Pakistan’s military or government, New Delhi will be compelled to respond — not just tactically, but strategically. This would include not only another series of strikes but also a prolonged military, diplomatic, economic and informational offensive to isolate and delegitimise Pakistan on a global scale.
This patient yet bold strategy against Pakistan under the shadow of China necessitates continuous national focus, a unified approach, a willingness to make collective sacrifices and the ability to suffer hardships. It will also necessitate enhancing the Indian defence budget needed for the modernisation of our forces and filling the critical gaps in defensive preparedness. There will also be a requirement for hastening the defence reforms, including the creation of theatre commands, which were initiated by the Modi government with the appointment of the Chief of Defence Staff almost six years back.
