India–Pakistan Ceasefire: Implications For The Regional And Global Order – Analysis
The ceasefire declared on May 10, 2025, between India and Pakistan represents a momentous yet tenuous lull in a protracted and volatile bilateral conflict that has defined South Asian geopolitics for decades. Orchestrated largely through behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts by the United States, Russia, and many more states this fragile accord emerges in the aftermath of a grave provocation: a devastating terrorist assault in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 Indian tourists. New Delhi, as part of its new foreign policy strategy went for a series of retaliatory strikes inflicting significant damage on Pakistani military assets and compelling Islamabad to seek a ceasefire.
Though this ceasefire momentarily pauses the haemorrhaging of hostilities, it is less a proclamation of enduring peace than a strategic intermission. The agreement, cantered along the embattled Line of Control (LoC), seeks primarily to avert an escalation into a nuclear conflict, mitigate civilian suffering, and shield critical infrastructure and military installations in the border regions. For India, the truce is interpreted as a vindication of its recalibrated military posture embodied by the Modi administration’s doctrine of swift, punitive retaliation and surgical precision strikes. For Pakistan, it underscores the perceived efficacy of its nuclear deterrent in restraining conventional escalation.
The role of international diplomacy, particularly the discreet yet consequential interventions of the United States was important in bringing the ceasefire. However, India remains reticent to fully endorse Washington’s role in the ceasefire. Importantly, the ceasefire does not affect the ongoing suspension of key bilateral frameworks, including the Indus Waters Treaty and the consequent Pak suspension of Simla Agreement. As such, while the ceasefire offers a temporary reprieve from conflict, its durability and transformative potential remain deeply uncertain.
The India-Pakistan ceasefire of May 10, 2025 has provoked a range of interpretations among policymakers, analysts, and international observers. While some view the development as a reaffirmation of India’s growing geopolitical stature, others interpret it as symbolically equating India with Pakistan—an outcome seen by critics as enabling broader regional ambitions of China and US interest in becoming a global peace broker. From this perspective, the ceasefire is perceived as a geopolitical manoeuvre serving Beijing’s strategic interest in maintaining equilibrium between the two South Asian rivals to prevent a decisive Indian ascendancy.
Contrary to these critiques, the evidence suggests that India’s Operation Sindoor, conducted in response to the Pahalgam terrorist attack, marks a significant inflection point in the country’s strategic orientation. The strike exemplifies the emergence of what may be termed as the New Modi Doctrine, which emphasizes prompt, targeted retaliation against cross-border terrorism, strategic autonomy, and an assertive projection of national power. This evolving doctrine reflects a reimagined India or Bharat—as an increasingly self-assured regional power with aspirations for global influence.
At the heart of this posture lies a concerted effort to augment indigenous military capability. The performance of domestically produced weaponry during the 90-hour conflict has significantly reinforced the credibility of the Make in India initiative, signalling a shift from dependence on foreign defense imports toward a more self-reliant, technologically advanced military-industrial base. This technological validation not only enhances India’s defense preparedness but also challenges the dominance of established arms exporters, particularly in light of India’s successful neutralization of Turkish and Chinese drones during the conflict.
Nonetheless, the strategic success of Operation Sindoor has been accompanied by considerable diplomatic and economic challenges. Michael Rubin, the former Pentagon official remarks Indian strike as a diplomatic and military victory. India’s victory also lies in shifting global focus onto Pakistan’s support for terrorism, exposing the deep ties between the Pakistani military and terrorist organisation (Times of India, 2025). It appears that the successful strikes by India on some of Pakistan’s most important military bases like Rahim Yar Khan and Sargodha was perhaps the final nail in the coffin for Pakistan to stop its dangerous and escalatory behaviour. The Indian win sets the tone for a new doctrine against terrorism. Even a publication like the New York Times which is seen as inimical to India’s Modi government conceded that after India attacked Nur Khan air base reportedly panic spread that India would decapitate Pakistan’s nuclear facilities and they scrambled for a ceasefire (Australia Today, 2025).
The US Attempt to Seek a Mediatory Role
The involvement of external actors, especially the United States in brokering the ceasefire has reignited debates about India’s long-standing opposition to third-party mediation in bilateral disputes. While U.S. officials have emphasized their role in facilitating peace, Indian authorities have firmly rejected this narrative. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated unequivocally that “it was the force of Indian arms that compelled Pakistan to stop its firing,” thereby reaffirming India’s commitment to strategic autonomy.
Militarily, Pakistan emerged from the conflict with significant losses, including the downing of its several advanced Chinese and Turkish UAVs, defence systems and damage to key airfields. Furthermore, a rare admission by a Pakistani minister acknowledging the state’s past sponsorship of terrorism—allegedly at the behest of the United States—has further undermined Islamabad’s international credibility. Symbolically, the attendance of Pakistani officials at the funerals of slain militants has also brought Pakistani government under the scanner. On Sunday, the Government of India released the names of senior Pakistani officials who reportedly attended the funerals of terrorists eliminated during ‘Operation Sindoor’. Among those identified was Hafiz Abdul Rauf, a globally designated terrorist, who is said to have led the funeral rites. In what appeared to be an attempt by Pakistani authorities to portray Rauf as an ordinary civilian, the effort backfired when a high-ranking Pakistani official inadvertently disclosed sensitive details, including Rauf’s national identity number. This identifier matched records in the U.S. sanctions database, thereby confirming his designation under international counterterrorism frameworks (Deccan Herald, May 13, 2025).
This has blurred the already tenuous boundary between state military and government officials on the one hand and the non-state organisations and terrorists on the other, raising further concerns about Pakistan’s internal coherence and its commitment to counterterrorism norms.
Internationally, the conflict has triggered mixed reactions. While it has heightened India’s strategic profile and validated its doctrine of swift retaliation, it has also unsettled major powers, particularly the U.S. and China, both wary of India’s growing military-technological independence. India’s enhanced striking capability—rooted in indigenous systems—poses a challenge to existing defense industry paradigms in both the West and East.
The Modi Doctrine, articulated through both rhetoric and resolute action, signifies a paradigmatic shift in India’s foreign policy orientation. It underscores a triad of strategic pillars: assertive diplomacy, the indigenization of defense capabilities, and a recalibrated non-alignment posture suited to an increasingly multipolar world order. Crucial episodes with China, most notably the Doklam crisis 2017 and Galwan Valley clash 2020, have vividly illustrated this evolving doctrine, revealing a newly emboldened India, unhesitant in confronting geopolitical adversaries on its own terms. This transformation reflects not only a departure from past strategic restraint but also the emergence of a confident statecraft committed to safeguarding national interests through autonomous, decisive action.
Moreover, Modi’s proactive engagement with global powers, including summits with the U.S., Russia, and Japan, as well as deepening cooperation within the Quad framework, illustrates India’s vision of itself as not merely a balancing power, but a proactive architect of regional and global stability (Rajagopalan, 2021).
However, the current episode also highlights chinks in the QUAD framework, possible due to the US reluctance, as IMF released more funds to Pakistan against the Indian wishes. The conspicuous silence of the Quad, comprising the United States, India, Japan, and Australia, during the conflict has not gone unnoticed in geopolitical circles. This absence of a collective response or coordinated strategic signalling, particularly in the face of heightened regional instability, has inadvertently served to soothe anxieties in Beijing.
For China and Pakistan the Quad’s inaction may be read as a tacit confirmation of the grouping’s strategic incoherence and its limited utility as a security mechanism in South Asia. Therefore, while the recent India-Pakistan conflict has reaffirmed India’s position as a decisive and capable regional actor, it also underscores the complexities of its evolving global role. The enduring impact of this episode on India’s international stature will depend on its ability to translate military success into sustained diplomatic influence and economic resilience, while maintaining its commitment to strategic autonomy amid shifting global alliances.
The emerging geopolitics
The May 10 ceasefire has created a complex and fluid strategic environment, placing major stakeholders such as India, the United States, China, and Russia under varying degrees of pressure. The realignment of power and shifting diplomatic contours suggest that a new regional and global equilibrium may be in the making. The conflict highlights the emergence of geopolitical fault lines in Asia and the Global South. Turkey, Azerbaijan, and China’s support for Pakistan, along with Israel’s tilt towards India, indicates a pan-Islamic geopolitical axis with China as its economic and military anchor.
This poses a multi-front strategic dilemma for India, as it needs to recalibrate its defense doctrine to account for transregional threats. The silence of major global players like the United States, Russia, Japan, and the Arab world raises questions about the evolving architecture of international diplomacy and India’s position within it. Their neutrality may be interpreted as a diplomatic hedge to avoid alienating Pakistan or escalating tensions with China. This highlights India’s limitations in relying on moral support from global powers during times of national security threats.
For India, this demands heightened strategic vigilance and a recalibration of its foreign policy. China faces strategic frustration and realignment pressures due to the ceasefire limiting the potential for sustained Indo-Pak tension and raising questions about the efficacy of China’s defense exports and proxy influence through Islamabad. The United States sees the ceasefire as a diplomatic success, but its eagerness to claim a central role in regional peacebuilding and raking up Kashmir against the Indian view, has been publicly rebuffed by India, which maintains its doctrine of strategic autonomy. Washington’s pursuit of a broader Indo-Pacific strategy and its interest in expanding its role as a security guarantor in South Asia could now face friction, particularly if seen as encroaching upon India’s sovereign decision-making space. It is seeking the restoration of the traditional US clout, that it has lost in last few decades, through truce initiatives in Russia-Ukraine and India Pakistan conflicts and in both cases it has failed. President Trump’s frustration against this could be seen by his direction to Apple company to withdraw from India and increased tariff rates against India.
Russia finds itself navigating a delicate balance, between ties with China and Pakistan on the one hand and India on the other. The ceasefire presents a diplomatic challenge as Moscow must avoid alienating its historical partner, India. Moscow has been exploring for more deepening of ties with India after the success of SU 400 and Brahmos missile systems during the conflict. India must remain strategically alert, as the ceasefire has validated its military deterrence and diplomatic confidence but also invites greater challenges (increased militancy in the valley, keep the South-Asian theatre ignited for the sale of arms and weaken Indian growth rate, trade tariffs and border pickings from China).
The Modi Doctrine of muscular diplomacy and strategic autonomy now faces a test of sustainability in managing the Pakistan front and balancing relations with competing global powers. The formation of an All-Parties delegation to highlight Pakistan-sponsored terrorism constitutes a strategically significant move, both in terms of international diplomacy and domestic political consensus.
On the global stage, such a delegation serves to articulate India’s security concerns and counter-narrative by presenting a unified political front, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of its claims and fostering greater international awareness. Domestically, this initiative has the potential to foster a more nuanced and collective understanding among diverse political stakeholders regarding critical national security issues. Moreover, the inclusive nature of the delegation may catalyse a political revival within the Indian National Congress, particularly by reactivating its marginalized leadership and providing a platform for emerging voices. This, in turn, could contribute to a reshaping of the party’s leadership dynamics and public image in the years ahead, potentially reinvigorating its role within India’s evolving political landscape. The post-ceasefire moment is less an end than a new beginning in the evolving architecture of Asian geopolitics.