India-Pakistan Tensions Escalate After Kashmir Attack, Ceasefire Restores Fragile Calm

Tensions between India and Pakistan surged in recent weeks following a deadly attack in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), reigniting fears of regional conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations.

The April 22 assault in the Baisaran area of Pahalgam claimed the lives of 26 civilians, mostly tourists. Despite lacking conclusive evidence, Indian authorities swiftly pointed fingers at Pakistan, triggering a diplomatic standoff and military mobilization.

Islamabad strongly denied the allegations. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the attack and proposed an impartial international investigation, suggesting involvement from global powers such as China or Russia. However, India dismissed the offer, labeling it a “distraction,” and began preparing for military action.

Indian Airstrikes Spark Regional Alarm

On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, carrying out a series of airstrikes on targets in Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). The strikes included both military and civilian zones, resulting in considerable infrastructure damage and drawing criticism for violating international law and Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC) condemned the attacks, describing them as unjustified acts of aggression. In response, Pakistan’s air defense successfully intercepted several Indian jets and drones, including advanced Rafale aircraft. Islamabad’s military response remained focused strictly on strategic military targets, in compliance with international norms.

Pakistan Responds with Controlled Retaliation

On May 10, Pakistan launched Operation Banyan-ul-Marsoos, a carefully coordinated counter-operation targeting Indian military and surveillance assets. Unlike India’s strikes, Pakistan’s operation was precision-based and avoided civilian casualties, reflecting its policy of restraint and adherence to international law.

Defense analysts described Pakistan’s response as both strategic and proportionate, serving as a firm deterrent while avoiding full-scale escalation.

Global Pressure Forces Ceasefire

The rising tensions prompted urgent diplomatic interventions from the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. These global powers called for an immediate ceasefire. Facing mounting pressure and internal political challenges, India reluctantly agreed to the ceasefire terms brokered by international mediators.

Pakistan’s leadership, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Defense Minister Khawaja Asif, reiterated the country’s commitment to peace. However, they affirmed that Pakistan would not compromise its sovereignty or tolerate unprovoked aggression.

Diplomatic Outcome Favors Pakistan

In the aftermath of the ceasefire, Pakistan was praised globally for its measured response and commitment to peace. Its actions were viewed as responsible and aligned with international expectations. Notably, Pakistan’s successful diplomatic outreach also helped secure its pending IMF loan, strengthening its economic standing.

At the United Nations, Pakistan raised concerns over India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and its repeated violations of the Simla Accord. Islamabad emphasized the need for international scrutiny of India’s actions in IIOJK and urged the world to revisit the Kashmir dispute as the root cause of recurring tensions.

U.S. President Donald Trump reignited international debate over Kashmir, calling for renewed global attention to the long-standing conflict. Meanwhile, India faced growing skepticism over its narrative, especially after evidence surfaced supporting Pakistan’s claim of shooting down an Indian Rafale jet—despite New Delhi’s denial.

Pakistan Emerges as a Diplomatic Victor

While India sought to shift focus from internal political turmoil through external aggression, Pakistan maintained composure and won broad diplomatic support. The crisis ended not with further escalation, but with Pakistan asserting its stance through strategy, diplomacy, and restraint.