Is India Now Setting the Terms for Ceasefire?

New Delhi, May 10 (NationPress) After four days of significant military confrontations that reverberated through global centers, India and Pakistan reached a ceasefire agreement on Saturday, marking a pivotal distinction – this ceasefire is exclusively shaped by New Delhi’s directives. Unlike past instances influenced by diplomatic pressures or third-party interventions, the 2025 ceasefire signifies a momentous doctrinal and strategic transformation under the stewardship of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, according to security analysts.

To grasp the importance of this juncture, it is essential to consider the historical progression of India-Pakistan ceasefires. The Karachi Agreement in July 1949 established the framework for a ceasefire overseen by the United Nations, with negotiations heavily influenced by U.S. interests and the global dynamics of the Cold War.

India “acknowledged UN oversight and international monitoring in pursuit of peace, creating a precedent for externally imposed frameworks.”

In 1965, after a costly conflict in which India made substantial territorial gains, UN Security Council Resolution 211 mandated a ceasefire, leading to the Tashkent Declaration – primarily mediated by the USSR and USA—where India returned all territorial advantages in a display of diplomatic restraint that, in hindsight, proved detrimental, according to strategic experts.

The 1971 war marked India's military peak, culminating in the surrender of 93,000 Pakistani troops.

However, under significant geopolitical pressure, India signed the Simla Agreement without securing strategic advantages. Pakistan retained PoJK, efforts to formalize the Line of Control (LoC) as an international boundary were neglected, and the humanitarian and security challenges stemming from the refugee influx remained unaddressed. Alarmingly, India unilaterally released all prisoners of war, gaining little in exchange, observers note.

Subsequent incidents—from the IPKF withdrawal in Sri Lanka in 1990 to the Kargil ceasefire in 1999 orchestrated by the Clinton administration—reflect a consistent pattern: military determination weakened under external pressures or political timidity.

Yet, 2025 signifies a departure from this pattern. The post-Pahalgam response—Operation Sindoor—marked a calculated, precise, and overwhelming kinetic retaliation, dismantling nine significant terror camps across Pakistan and PoJK.

India not only showcased tri-services coordination and air dominance but also indicated the emergence of a new national doctrine: in future, any act of terror will be classified as an act of war. This positions India alongside a select group of nations—such as the U.S. and Israel—that have explicitly defined retaliatory doctrines addressing asymmetric warfare.

Additionally, India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains steadfast despite the ceasefire—further signaling India’s refusal to normalize relations while Pakistan continues to support cross-border terrorism. Importantly, the World Bank has now withdrawn from its conventional role as guarantor of the IWT, considerably undermining Pakistan's stance.

In contrast to previous decades, no third party played a role in brokering this ceasefire. The initiative originated directly from Pakistan’s DGMO, and India consented only after confirming its strategic and operational goals were satisfied. This bilateral ceasefire starkly contrasts with past agreements—it is not a cessation of Indian pressure but a temporary halt in kinetic activity. Trade restrictions, visa limitations, diplomatic downgrades, and water leverage remain firmly established.

Today, India ranks as the fifth-largest economy globally, a significant technological power, and a prominent global voice. In contrast, Pakistan finds itself economically weakened, diplomatically isolated, and strategically confined. The disparity is striking.

The ceasefire of 2025 is not a return to the status quo—it is a declaration. A new India has emerged, unwilling to tolerate a rogue neighbor whose state apparatus thrives on jihad and chaos. Although the guns may have quieted, India’s control—military, economic, and diplomatic—remains resolute and unwavering.