Assessing India-Pakistan Tensions Post Ceasefire

By Farwa Aamer

Editor’s Introduction: Hi there. In today’s Asia Policy Brief, ASPI’s Director of South Asia Initiatives Farwa Aamer analyzes the developments in India-Pakistan tensions following the devastating terror attack in Pahalgam in April and the subsequent ceasefire in May. While the guns may have fallen silent over the last 90 days, Farwa assesses why this pause is more tactical than a pathway to peace.

State of Affairs: Peace Remains Elusive

Nearly three months have passed since the May 2025 ceasefire between India and Pakistan, yet the crisis continues to command headlines, not least due to President Trump’s repeated claims that U.S. mediation, leveraging trade pressures, averted a nuclear catastrophe. His recent assertion that five jets were shot down during the height of the confrontation has brought the episode back into the spotlight.

The brief but intense conflict marked one of the sharpest escalations between the two South Asian heavy weights in recent memory. Although direct military confrontation has halted, the underlying territorial, historical, and ideological grievances remain as entrenched as ever.

Both nations have since pivoted to the realm of strategic messaging. Diplomatic forums and multilateral platforms have become venues for projecting strength, controlling narrative, and managing global optics. Each side believes it has emerged with key gains. India has anchored its narrative in counterterrorism, making it the defining theme of its diplomatic engagements. Pakistan, meanwhile, has positioned itself as amenable to dialogue, crediting U.S. mediation for the ceasefire and even nominating President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for what it described as “decisive diplomatic intervention.”

Why It Matters: More Players, Fewer Safeguards, Higher Stakes

The May 2025 crisis should be understood not as an anomaly, but as a warning: future escalations are likely to unfold more rapidly and with greater volatility. The speed at which events unfolded left minimal space for measured restraint, and it was only U.S. intervention (delayed but significant) that arrested the slide toward wider conflict. While India publicly denies third-party involvement and Pakistan openly embraces it, the uncomfortable truth is that neither side managed the crisis on its own, and both sides were willing to push boundaries. That matters deeply in a region with no functioning crisis management architecture or sustained dialogue mechanisms.

In the aftermath, Washington’s dual-track engagement with India and Pakistan appears to be undergoing adjustments, though it does not yet amount to a full strategic realignment.

India remains central to U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy as a China counterweight and a vital economic, defense, and technological partner. A major bilateral trade agreement is under active negotiation, and New Delhi seems to be navigating the transactional nature of Washington’s foreign policy by doubling down on long-term strategic convergence.

Washington’s approach with Islamabad has subtly recalibrated. On June 18, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, met President Trump at the White House in a rare high-profile engagement that bypassed Pakistan’s civilian leadership. For Islamabad, it marked a partial return to relevance in Washington’s strategic calculus after years of stagnation during the Biden administration. But the manner of this re-entry could limit the depth and breadth of re-engagement, tethering it to old patterns of military-first diplomacy. As it reengages, Pakistan’s ability to balance ties with both Washington and Beijing, while also managing relationships with regional players, will determine the breadth of its foreign policy agility.

India, meanwhile, has since maintained a more deliberate posture. It continues to embed itself deeper in the Indo-Pacific framework while cautiously seeking border stability with China, despite Beijing’s visible tilt toward Pakistan during the crisis. New Delhi has reiterated that any engagement with Islamabad will be limited strictly to counterterrorism, a position it carried to recent multilateral forums. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization defense ministers’ meeting in June, India declined to endorse language it deemed weak on terrorism. In the recent Quad foreign ministers’ meeting, the joint statement condemned the Pahalgam terror attack but stopped short of naming Pakistan, a compromise India appeared willing to accept to preserve strategic alignment with its partners. The U.S. State Department’s recent designation of The Resistance Front, a proxy group linked to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, that claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam terror attack, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) was welcomed by Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar as a reaffirmation of growing U.S.-India counterterrorism cooperation. Pakistan, in response, pushed back by highlighting its counterterrorism efforts and cautioning against the political misuse of such designations.

Finally, the India-Pakistan crisis revealed a broader truth: South Asia is no longer a two-player theater. Alongside the United States and China, countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey were also seen playing an active role during the conflict, calling on both sides to show restraint and deescalate. This growing involvement means that future crises are likely to draw in a wider range of external actors, each with their own interests and agendas.

What to Watch: Essential Factors Influencing India-Pakistan Relations

1. Washington’s Balancing Act: The renewed opening in U.S.-Pakistan relations is prompting careful observation in New Delhi. Washington has expressed interest in expanding engagement with Islamabad on cryptocurrency and critical minerals, and has signaled its view of Pakistan as a potentially useful actor during regional volatility, such as with the recent Iran-Israel tensions. For India, this does not yet amount to strategic concern, but coupled with ongoing trade friction and irritation at Washington’s narrative of events, the public relationship seems to have cooled. Any deeper tilt, including broad-based revival of U.S.-Pakistan ties, would be viewed warily and could affect broader cooperation on key bilateral and regional issues.

2. Dialogue or Deadlock? Shortly after the ceasefire, Secretary Rubio floated the idea of broad-based India-Pakistan talks at a neutral venue. That prospect seems distant now. Political will, especially in New Delhi, is lacking. However, it remains crucial to watch whether Washington can sustain a meaningful role in embedding crisis management mechanisms to prevent future escalations.

3. Future of the Indus Waters Treaty: Once a model of cooperation, the Indus Waters Treaty is now under strain. The coming months will test whether India and Pakistan can resolve water disputes constructively or if water will persist as a politicized factor in their ongoing bilateral tensions.

4. The Quiet Front: Cultural and societal linkages continue to fray amid visa restrictions, artist bans, and pause on trade. These soft diplomacy channels once acted as informal safety valves during crises. Even incremental revival is essential to foster an environment conducive to formal diplomatic progress.

Dive Deeper with ASPI

• Watch ASPI’s expert discussion on Crossfire to Ceasefire: Navigating India-Pakistan Tensions, featuring Farwa Aamer, Akshay Mathur, and Cameron Munter; moderated by Rorry Daniels.

• Watch ASPI’s insightful webinar on Through South Asia's Eyes: Trump’s 100-Day Impact.

• Read Farwa Aamer’s latest edition of the monthly South Asia Snapshot.

• Watch Farwa Aamer in conversation with fashion and policy experts on Tariffs and Textiles: Fashion Interrupted.