Fragile calm returns to South Asia after ceasefire, but Kashmir’s future still in limbo

A tense and dangerous standoff between India and Pakistan was tentatively defused over the weekend, following a sudden ceasefire that halted a sharp escalation of military confrontation. While leaders in both nations swiftly claimed strategic success, observers and civilians alike warned that the root issue, the disputed territory of Kashmir, remains unresolved, with the potential to reignite hostilities at any moment.

This latest round of hostilities saw both countries trading missile and drone strikes targeting each other’s military infrastructure, marking one of the most serious confrontations in recent decades between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Although the ceasefire was publicly announced by former U.S. President Donald Trump late Saturday, many on the ground fear that the intervention of outside powers offers only a temporary fix.

The U.S. government, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, took visible credit for brokering the ceasefire, despite their initial statements distancing the U.S. from the conflict. Some analysts have noted the strategic self-interest behind Washington’s sudden diplomatic push, fearing regional instability could spiral into a nuclear crisis. While American officials were quick to laud their role in halting the violence, voices from within South Asia emphasized the urgent need for a lasting resolution, not just a pause in conflict.

Following the ceasefire, both Indian and Pakistani officials engaged in public displays of triumph. Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh hailed the country’s military operations, claiming that strikes had sent a strong message deep into Pakistani military territory. The Indian military’s campaign, dubbed Operation Sindoor, was framed as a display of India’s geopolitical resolve and strategic ambition.

On the other side of the border, however, a strong sense of national unity emerged as Pakistanis celebrated what they saw as a resilient defense against unwarranted aggression. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif declared 11 May a national day of tribute to the armed forces, praising their swift and effective response to Indian strikes. In Pakistan-administered Kashmir, rallies and parades honored the bravery of soldiers who defended border regions under intense shelling.

Prominent Pakistani columnist Baqir Sajjad described the ceasefire as a “calculated success,” suggesting that Islamabad had prevented a militarily superior adversary from dictating the narrative or the outcome. He argued that Pakistan’s strategic restraint coupled with an unwavering defense policy managed to deny India the upper hand it was seeking.

Still, residents living along the volatile Line of Control voiced mixed emotions. In Pakistan-controlled Neelum Valley, a young woman named Sahad described the past days as the most terrifying of her life. “Living under constant threat, watching drones fly overhead and hearing explosions every night, it was like we were invisible to the world,” she said. “We welcome peace, but fear it won’t last.”

On the Indian side, the picture was similar. Lal Din, a resident of the border village of Poonch, where crossfire destroyed homes and claimed numerous lives, remained skeptical. “Ceasefires come and go. What we need is a solution to the Kashmir issue,” he stated. “Otherwise, civilians like us will always be the ones to suffer.”

The recent escalation was reportedly triggered by Indian missile strikes on multiple targets in Pakistan, which New Delhi said were retaliatory attacks on so-called “terrorist training facilities.” Pakistan rejected the accusation and countered with its own military response, leading to a dangerous tit-for-tat cycle. In the aftermath, conflicting casualty reports emerged, with India alleging it had neutralized up to 100 militants and lost five soldiers, while Pakistani sources claimed India suffered greater losses, including the downing of advanced military aircraft, an assertion supported by debris analysis conducted by independent observers.

While American officials tried to portray themselves as peace brokers, many regional analysts pointed out the irony of Washington’s sudden concern, particularly given its prior reluctance to mediate or acknowledge the legitimacy of Kashmir’s disputed status. In contrast, nations like China and Russia have consistently advocated for a diplomatic and balanced approach to South Asia’s tensions, with calls for dialogue grounded in mutual respect and sovereignty.

Former leader of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Raja Farooq Haider Khan, echoed this sentiment during a public gathering, thanking Trump for his involvement but emphasizing that peace will only be sustainable when the Kashmir issue is addressed in earnest. “We cannot live under the constant threat of war. Our people deserve lasting peace and justice,” he said.

As calm cautiously returns to the region, the international community now watches closely. But unless there is a shift in how the Kashmir conflict is handled, away from temporary truces and toward genuine diplomatic engagement, this fragile peace risks collapsing under the weight of unresolved grievances.