Ceasefire or Reset? India Redraws the Rules

After ten days of rapid military escalation, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire following one of the most intense cross-border confrontations since 1999. The agreement, which came into effect after backchannel outreach from Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), halts for now a spiralling cycle of drone warfare, missile strikes, and artillery fire. Yet beneath the appearance of de-escalation lies a recalibrated Indian doctrine, one that marks a significant departure from past restraint.

The Road to Ceasefire

The conflict erupted following the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 civilians and was claimed—then denied—by The Resistance Front, a Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy. In response, India launched Operation Sindoor on the night of May 6–7, a tri-service precision operation targeting nine terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). Notably, the operation was designed to avoid military and civilian infrastructure, reinforcing India’s narrative of a non-escalatory, pre-emptive strike.

However, Pakistan responded with drone swarms and missile launches on Indian military bases across multiple states. India’s air defence grid neutralised these attacks, but Pakistani artillery barrages led to civilian casualties. In response, India escalated further by targeting Pakistani air defence systems in Lahore, Sargodha, air bases in Nur Khan, Murid, Rafiqui,  and reportedly near strategic locations including Rawalpindi. Some reports even indicate that sites proximate to Pakistan's suspected nuclear command infrastructure may have been deliberately skirted—yet brought within targeting range, as a calibrated signal. 

Competing Narratives and Tactical Gains

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a nationally televised address, described the ceasefire as a “historic victory” and claimed India had waged an “unjustified war” to deflect from internal issues. He praised Pakistan’s military preparedness, despite the fact that it was Pakistan’s own DGMO who reached out to India for de-escalation. India, for its part, made no concessions—military or diplomatic—while maintaining that all trade bans, airspace restrictions, and the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty would continue. Worth noting is that President Trump announced the ceasefire, indicating that the US played a key role in securing it. However, the Indian government has distanced itself from this claim. Meanwhile, this has ruffled feathers in China, which was left out in the negotiations and received little mention in the Pakistani prime minister's speech. 

What changed in New Delhi is not its rhetoric, but its red lines. Hours before the ceasefire was announced, Indian officials made it clear that any future terror attack would be treated as an act of war. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh declared that Operation Sindoor was not a one-off, and Foreign Minister Jaishankar noted that India's tolerance for Pakistan’s use of terrorism as statecraft had “expired.”

Strategic Evolution and the ‘New Normal’

Unlike the surgical strikes of 2016 or the Balakot airstrike of 2019, Operation Sindoor was wider in scale, deeper in planning, and doctrinally different. The use of SCALP and HAMMER precision-guided munitions, Harop drones, and deep surveillance marked a shift from reprisal to denial: India sought not merely to punish, but to degrade the infrastructure that enables cross-border terrorism.

The fact that Pakistan’s major air defence hubs were hit—and that strategic facilities in Rawalpindi and Sargodha were left vulnerable—underscored India’s growing risk tolerance. For the first time, India showed it was willing to match escalation domain-for-domain, without immediately fearing nuclear retaliation. This is a dangerous but deliberate shift. The escalation ladder in South Asia is now shorter, the thresholds lower, and the reaction time compressed.

Outlook: Strategic Breather, Not Strategic Settlement

The current ceasefire may hold in the short term, but it does not signal resolution. India’s military posture has changed from reactive to pre-emptive, and this recalibration is here to stay. While New Delhi has signalled restraint by accepting the ceasefire, it has drawn a hard line: terrorism will be met with force, not diplomacy. There are meetings scheduled between the DGMOs and further details are awaited. 

For Pakistan, the outlook is more precarious. The Munir doctrine—framing Kashmir as existential and invoking religious nationalism—has failed to alter the strategic environment. International sympathy has shifted; global media and diplomatic circles broadly endorsed India’s narrative of pre-emptive self-defence. Pakistan’s economy, already fragile, has come under further strain from market losses and airspace shutdowns.

Conclusion

The ceasefire has bought time—but not peace. India has demonstrated it is willing to strike, absorb retaliation, and climb the escalation ladder in a calibrated manner. This “new normal” may deter Pakistan temporarily, but the region remains on edge. Strategic deterrence in South Asia has not broken—but it is being rewritten, and India is now holding the pen. Meanwhile, the markets in India have welcomed the news of a ceasefire and India's new method of response. The Sensex today, surged 2,200 points; Nifty is near 24,700, small and midcaps jumped 3%.