arly in the evening on May 10, an announcement was made on behalf of the US president and the secretary of state that India and Pakistan had agreed to a ceasefire. The US secretary of state had been actively engaged since the morning of May 10 to ensure that the escalating military exchanges between India and Pakistan did not become a full and intense war. He had talked to the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan and pleaded for restraint and ceasefire. He had also phoned Pakistan’s army chief. These phone calls were followed up with his active interaction with the leaders of the two countries. The American vice president was also part of the process. Earlier, Saudi Arabia’s deputy foreign minister had visited Delhi and Islamabad on May 8 and 9, respectively. American authorities were in contact with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye to ensure avoidance of a war between India and Pakistan.

Pakistani leaders told the American secretary of state that the war had been started by India and that Pakistan would only respond to Indian provocations. They said that if India showed restraint, Pakistan would do likewise. Pakistan also reiterated two policy positions that it had announced in the immediate aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist incident. First, Pakistan proposed an independent inquiry by a neutral international group. Pakistan offered full cooperation with such an international inquiry. Second, Pakistan said that it would not initiate military activity and would only respond to any military action by India. These two positions helped Pakistan gain considerable goodwill at the international level.

The US leadership issued a statement of concern on the first day of the post-Pahalgam conflict, but did not show any interest in getting directly involved to defuse tensions between the two countries. It stayed on the sidelines. However, its policy had changed by the morning of May 10; the US leadership was now actively working for a ceasefire.

The most intriguing questions are: why did the top US leaders get actively involved in defusing the conflict between India and Pakistan; and what led India, which had initially said that it would teach Pakistan a lesson by launching a military offensive, accept the ceasefire?

To answer these questions, one has to examine the gradual escalation of the conflict, especially Pakistan’s missile strikes on 26 Indian military sites on May 10.

India escalated the confrontation on May 6-7 night by launching missile attacks at six places in Pakistan. These places were in the vicinity of Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Muridke, Sialkot, Shakargarh and Ahmedpur Sharqia (in Bahawalpur district). In some of these places, the Indian missiles targeted mosques. India claimed that they had targeted “terrorist camps” of Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Muhammad organisations. Official Indian sources claimed that they had fully destroyed “terrorist centres.” It appeared, however, that Indian information about these places was at best outdated. There were no militant training camps there. As a result of these attacks, 31 civilians were killed and 57 people suffered injuries. The casualties included women and children.

While Indian aircraft fired missiles from within Indian territory, the Pakistan Air Force sprung into action and faced the Indian aircraft from the Line of Control in Kashmir to the Punjab sector. The Pakistani aircraft also fired missiles that destroyed 5 Indian aircraft, including French Rafale jets and a drone. India did not publicly acknowledge the loss of Rafale jets. However, the French company producing these jets admitted the loss of Rafale aircraft, although it kept quiet on the number of jets lost that night.

India next launched 77 drone aircraft targeting Pakistan’s air defence system along the border on the May 7-8 night and the next day. These drones covered the area from Islamabad to Karachi. These drones were shot down or crashed on their own. In addition to this, the militaries of the two countries had been exchanging fire since May 7 on the Line of Control in Kashmir. Low-key military incidents on the Line of Control had started within four to five days of the Pahalgam terrorist incident. These became more intense from May 7.

Pakistan showed restraint after the drone aircraft attack. It maintained that it reserved the right to strike back at India over the provocations but it was showing restraint to give time to international diplomacy. Iran’s foreign minister and Saudi Arabia’s deputy foreign minister visited Islamabad and Delhi and discussed the issues of peace and stability in the region. Türkiye and Azerbaijan officially supported Pakistan. They also advised both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and start talks. The United Kingdom and the European Union expressed concern about the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, noting that both had nuclear weapons. China supported Pakistan but advised restraint on both sides.

By May 9, India had moved its naval fleet in the open sea to increase military pressure on Pakistan. On the May 9-10 night, Indian missiles targeted four Pakistani sites but there were no casualties. Soon afterwards, Pakistan responded by launching missile raids on 26 military sites in Indian-occupied Kashmir and India, causing serious damage to military installations, including S-400 air defence system obtained from Russia. Pakistani drones went up to Delhi. Pakistan also launched a cyber-attack on various official Indian accounts and internet-based systems and platforms.

This massive missile attack undermined India’s military capacity beyond India’s expectations. The US was perturbed by this attack because it demonstrated Pakistan’s capacity to take on India. The US feared that the situation could escalate to a full-scale war if India responded. The possibility of the conventional war crossing the nuclear threshold could no longer be ruled out.

In less than a day, the US succeeded in securing a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Had it not suffered a massive setback, India would not have agreed to a ceasefire. Had there not been a massive missile attack by Pakistan, the US would have stayed on the sidelines and done nothing beyond issuing statements. It now perceived the threat of the conventional war escalating to nuclear exchange. The US is India’s strategic partner; however, as the situation deteriorated, it decided to stay neutral and work for a ceasefire.

The ceasefire has averted a full-fledged war but it does not guarantee that India and Pakistan will resolve the issues that afflict their relations.

There are several major lessons from the latest India-Pakistan military confrontation. Other countries, especially the major powers, do not want India and Pakistan to go to full war because both are nuclear weapons states. However, they are not interested in resolving the causes of the conflict between India and Pakistan, including Kashmir and India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. These countries wish to act like firefighters and not problem solvers.

Pakistan will have to undertake active diplomacy on these two issues. The officials of India and Pakistan are expected to meet soon but given the mindset shown by the Indian government, this meeting is unlikely to revive the dialogue suspended by India in August 2014. Their relations will continue to be marred by distrust and hostility. It needs to be noted that India agreed to a ceasefire after Pakistan launched successful missile raids on its military bases and installations. The moral of the story is that Pakistan’s success at the international level depends to a great extent on its internal strength. In addition to military strength, which played a decisive role in this conflict, Pakistan needs to build its economic resilience. Building economic strength and economic autonomy should be its priority. However, this cannot be achieved if domestic politics remain conflictual and divided.

Pakistan must work to increase popular trust in the political arrangements and give up the partisan use of state machinery. A key lesson of the latest war with India is that Pakistan needs to prioritise its internal political, economic and military strengths. Attention needs to be paid to to the acquisition of modern knowledge, science and technology. This is a tall agenda but internal strength alone can ensure a respectable role for Pakistan at the international and regional levels.

The writer is a political analyst. His X handle: @har132har