Historical Context of the Conflict

India and Pakistan have long captured global attention whenever they engage, whether on the cricket field or the diplomatic stage. As two nuclear-armed neighbours, even minor developments between them often trigger intense international scrutiny, media speculation, and the spread of unverified narratives.

While India and Pakistan share deep historical, cultural, and linguistic ties, their division in 1947 stemmed from a complex blend of political, religious, and colonial factors. Since independence, the two nations have fought four major wars: the First Kashmir War (1947–48), the Second Indo-Pak War (1965), the Bangladesh Liberation War (1971), and the Kargil Conflict (1999). Despite over seven decades of separation, the Kashmir dispute remains the most contentious issue, continuously fueling animosity and conflict.

The Pahalgam Attack and Operation Sindoor

Tensions flared once again following a deadly terrorist attack on April 22 in the Baisaran Valley, Pahalgam (Indian-administered Kashmir), where gunmen killed 26 people—25 tourists, including one Nepali national, and a local pony handler. India attributed the attack to The Resistance Front (TRF), allegedly supported by Pakistan.

In retaliation, India launched “Operation Sindoor” on early 7 May 2025 (local time), targeting what it described as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, hitting deep into key hubs of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen.

While India framed the operation as a necessary counter-terror measure, Pakistan strongly denied involvement, condemned the attack, and called for an impartial international investigation.

Pakistan responded to India’s attack under “Operation Bunyan-um Marsoos” with missiles and drones targeting military bases and assets, with the claim of shooting down five Indian fighter jets, including three French-made Rafales and many drones. India described its airstrike as an act of “unprovoked aggression,” while Pakistan characterised its response as an act of “self-defence.”

Notably, both nations refrained from targeting military assets with lethal intent, reflecting strategic measures aimed at demonstrating sensitivity and minimising escalation.

US-Brokered Peace and Diplomatic Engagement

Amid rising tensions, the United States stepped in to broker a ceasefire, marking a pivotal moment toward de-escalation. The agreement, finalised after what the USA described as an “intense” effort, included commitments from both sides to avoid further hostilities and prioritise the safety of civilians.

The United Kingdom also participated in backchannel diplomacy, although neither Washington nor London explicitly condemned India’s military strikes. Instead, both powers emphasised restraint and the need for dialogue.

This diplomatic intervention appears to have been driven by a range of strategic calculations, reflecting not only regional imperatives but also broader global geopolitical considerations.

The ceasefire between the nuclear-armed states was not only inevitable from an international standpoint but also critically important for both nations due to their respective national interests, economic pressures, and the witness of growing global fatigue with prolonged conflict.

The historic ceasefire, called within just 90 hours of escalation, represents a significant achievement for both countries.

It sends a strong and unequivocal message to the world: conflict is not the solution, and both nations are committed to pursuing peace and prosperity.

The speed with which the ceasefire was reached underscores its inevitability, shaped by both internal and external factors, including the following:

Nuclear Brinkmanship

The nuclear arsenals of both countries raise the stakes of any confrontation. Public pressure and political posturing could push one or both nations dangerously close to deploying nuclear weapons, with catastrophic global consequences. This escalation marks more than just a confrontation between India and Pakistan—it represents the first historic military escalation between two nuclear-armed nations, setting a deeply concerning global precedent.

Uncertain Military Capabilities

Both countries face limitations in their aerial warfare and defence systems. Recent skirmishes have exposed gaps in their air combat readiness, raising concerns about their preparedness for a high-stakes conflict.

Undeniably, it was not enough time for both countries to develop a full-scale war strategy, while both countries lack an in-depth analysis of each other’s military strengths and weaknesses. Further, the recent skirmish was the first real test of their air-to-air engagement and air defence mechanisms, exposing vulnerabilities on both sides.

Pakistan’s Economic Vulnerability

With its fragile economy, Pakistan is ill-equipped to sustain a prolonged military conflict with India, which Pakistan perceives as a “must-win.” Any escalation with India—a significantly larger military and economic power—would carry existential risks that Pakistan is financially unable to afford.

Amid the current economic struggles, the prospect of war further undermines Pakistan’s morale and diminishes its motivation to engage with a sense of victory.

India’s Development and Economic Growth Focus

India is heavily invested in its ambitions to become a global economic powerhouse. A drawn-out conflict would undermine economic growth, divert resources, and jeopardise its international standing. Delhi likely views diplomacy and strategic alliances as more effective tools for influencing Pakistan and continues its struggle to deal with Pakistan.

Global Conflict Fatigue and Geopolitical Complexity

With ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and civil unrest and military confrontations across Africa and a changing multi-polar alliances, major powers are stretched thin with their own prioritised issues.

A new war in South Asia would not only tax global diplomacy but also risk spiralling into a broader and unmanageable catastrophic crisis. Both countries are witnessing the “hanging war” Russia-Ukraine war.

The Shift from Military to Trade Wars

Globally, conflicts are increasingly being fought through tariffs and economic measures rather than direct military engagement. Major powers are already entrenched in trade wars, and an India-Pakistan conflict would unnecessarily disrupt their economic relations.

Both nations rank among the world’s largest producers of rice and wheat, meaning any trade war between them could destabilise global food markets.

Political Gains and Winning Public Sentiment

The claims made by both nations offer a situation of win-win, which leverages the crisis to rally domestic support, demonstrating their ability to manage national security and respond decisively to public concerns.

By aligning their actions with popular sentiment, both governments reinforced public trust in their leadership and military capabilities. Additionally, the situation provided political capital for the leaders of both nations, enhancing their standing and potentially strengthening their prospects in upcoming elections.

Geopolitical Stakes and Strategic Dependencies

Furthermore, the ceasefire appears to be significantly influenced by geopolitical considerations surrounding defence markets and strategic investments by global power blocs.

For example, Pakistan’s reported success in deploying Chinese-made fighter jets (J-10)—used to counter India’s French-made Rafale jets—has been cited as a demonstration of the effectiveness of Chinese military technology.

These jets, previously untested in real combat and often underestimated, now gain credibility if reports confirming the downing of at least three aircraft, including Rafales, are verified.

Such developments could enhance China’s standing in the global military-industrial complex, potentially shifting defence market trends.

At the same time, China’s strategic investments in Pakistan, particularly under initiatives like the Belt and Road, create mutual dependencies. A prolonged conflict would risk destabilising these high-value projects and compromising China’s long-term economic and strategic interests.

Consequently, Pakistan is unlikely to pursue extended hostilities at the risk of alienating Beijing, especially when it is likely to rely on Chinese financial support to continue its economic development efforts.

China’s backing for de-escalation was therefore critical, as any sustained conflict could jeopardise its regional ambitions and its trajectory toward becoming the world’s leading global power.

The Case for Lasting Peace

Peace between India and Pakistan is not only critical for bilateral relations but also essential for the broader development and stability of South Asia and globally.

A constructive partnership between the two nations would revitalise SAARC, unlock trade potential, attract foreign investment, and enable the region to address shared development challenges.

Moreover, the threat of nuclear war remains one of the most urgent global security concerns. Miscalculations or political missteps could lead to catastrophic outcomes, with far-reaching humanitarian and environmental consequences.

The fight against terrorism—often cited as a key justification for military action—cannot be effectively waged in isolation.

A united Indo-Pak approach to intelligence sharing, border control, and de-radicalisation could significantly improve regional security.

With over 1.5 billion people—many of them young—South Asia holds immense potential. Leveraging complementary strengths (e.g., Nepal’s green energy and water, India’s technology, Bangladesh’s workforce, Sri Lanka’s port access etc.) could help alleviate poverty, expand regional integration, and turn South Asia into a formidable global economic bloc.

Nepal’s Role and Perspective

As a peaceful, non-aligned country with cordial ties to both India and Pakistan, Nepal should strongly advocate for dialogue and diplomacy.

Sustainable peace between these two nations is critical not just for their prosperity but for the collective well-being of the entire region. Nepal must call upon both countries to de-escalate tensions, prioritise diplomacy, and work toward a lasting peace that reflects the aspirations of their people.