The Indian Ministry of External Affairs announced a ‘stoppage of war’ agreement effective from 5:00 PM IST on May 10, halting all military actions between the two nations. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, in a concise press conference in New Delhi, detailed the agreement, which was brokered following a call between Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) and India’s DGMO at 3:35 PM IST. The stoppage of firing, encompassing land, air, and sea operations, marks a pause in hostilities that flared after India’s retaliatory strikes, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu Kashmir (PoJK) in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. As the dust settles, India’s strategic gains from this ‘stoppage of firing’ are being widely discussed, highlighting the country’s assertive stance against terrorism and its ability to leverage diplomatic and military pressure. Below is a detailed analysis of what India has achieved through this agreement.
Escalation and Retaliation
Tensions between India and Pakistan skyrocketed following the April 22, 2025, terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 civilians, including 25 tourists, were brutally killed by Islamic terrorists linked to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its proxy, The Resistance Front (TRF). India attributed the attack to cross-border terrorism, accusing Pakistan of harbouring and supporting the perpetrators. In response, the Indian armed forces launched “Operation Sindoor,” a 25-minute precision strike on May 7, using advanced drones and air-launched weapons, targeting 24 terror launchpads and camps in Pakistan and PoJk, spanning across nine locations. The operation, which captured evidence of its success, showcased India’s enhanced military capabilities and sent a clear message of zero tolerance for terrorism.
Pakistan responded by attempting to target Indian military installations and civilian areas along the northern and western borders, employing drones, long-range weapons, and fighter jets. India reported successfully countering these provocations, including shooting down Turkey’s kamikaze drones in Punjab’s Amritsar sector. The escalating conflict, marked by Pakistan’s repeated violations along the Line of Control (LoC), prompted India to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), close the Attari-Wagah border, expel Pakistani diplomats, and downgrade diplomatic ties. Pakistan reciprocated with measures such as closing its airspace to Indian aircraft and suspending trade, further straining relations.
External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar reiterated India’s unwavering stance against terrorism, stating, “India has consistently maintained a firm and uncompromising stance against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It will continue to do so.”
What Does “Stoppage of Firing” Mean?
The term “stoppage of firing” refers to a temporary halt in cross-border military engagements between India and Pakistan, driven by diplomatic negotiations and India’s decisive military actions. On May 7, 2025, India launched targeted strikes against terrorist headquarters, dismantling training centers of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen in Pakistan. Following India’s strikes on 11 Pakistani air bases and sustained pressure, Pakistan halted its army actions, influenced by U.S. conditions tied to an IMF bailout, which required Pakistan to “accept losses” and cease firing. While they termed it cease fire, Indian diplomats call this “Stoppage of Firing” and an “Understanding” with Pakistan.
Despite the “stoppage of firing,” India’s military and strategic posture has not shifted, maintaining a robust response to any Pakistani aggression. The term does not signify a complete cessation of hostilities but rather a conditional de-escalation, with India reserving the right to target Pakistani infrastructure, such as terrorist camps and military installations, in retaliation for any violations.
Since May 8, 2025, India has continued to “pelt their infrastructure”. The “stoppage of firing” reflects Pakistan’s diplomatic concession under international pressure, particularly from the U.S., but India’s refusal to adopt the term “ceasefire” underscores its commitment to a proactive defence strategy. The situation remains dynamic, with India balancing military readiness and diplomatic navigation to safeguard national security.
What India Has Gained from the ‘Stoppage of Firing’
The stoppage of firing, while de-escalating immediate military tensions, has solidified India’s strategic position in several critical areas. The following points outline the key gains India has secured, reflecting its ability to impose significant costs on Pakistan while advancing its national security and diplomatic objectives.
1. Retribution for Pahalgam: Destruction of 24 Terror Targets
India’s primary objective following the Pahalgam attack was to deliver a decisive blow to Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure, which it accuses of orchestrating cross-border attacks. Operation Sindoor achieved this by targeting 24 terror launchpads and camps deep inside Pakistan and PoK. The precision strikes, executed with advanced weaponry, not only neutralised immediate threats but also disrupted Pakistan’s ability to stage future attacks. The operation’s success, backed by captured evidence, has bolstered India’s deterrence posture, signalling that any act of terrorism will invite swift and severe retaliation. This gain is particularly significant as it addresses public outrage over the Pahalgam massacre and reinforces the government’s commitment to punishing perpetrators “beyond their imagination,” as vowed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The destruction of these targets has also weakened Pakistan’s proxy war strategy, which relies on non-state actors like LeT and TRF to destabilise India, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. By hitting these camps directly, India has imposed a heavy operational cost on Pakistan’s terrorist ecosystem, forcing it to reconsider the risks of sponsoring such groups.
2. Crippling Pakistan’s Military Infrastructure: Destruction of Seven Air Bases
In a bold escalation, India’s retaliatory strikes targeted eight Pakistani military sites, including command and control centres at air bases such as Rafiqui, Murid, Chaklala, Rahim Yar Khan, Sukkur, and Chunian. The destruction of seven air bases, as claimed by Indian sources, represents a significant blow to Pakistan’s military capabilities, particularly its air force, which plays a critical role in its defence strategy. These strikes, executed with air-launched precision weapons, underscore India’s technological superiority and its willingness to target not just terrorist infrastructure but also state assets complicit in supporting terrorism.
This gain enhances India’s strategic leverage by exposing Pakistan’s vulnerabilities and reducing its capacity to project power in the region. The loss of these bases, described as a blow to Pakistan’s “strategic depth,” has also diminished its ability to respond effectively to future Indian military actions, thereby shifting the balance of power in India’s favour.
3. Strengthened Position on the Indus Waters Treaty
India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty on April 24, in response to the Pahalgam attack, has emerged as a powerful tool of strategic coercion. The treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, allocates 80 per cent of the water from the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) to Pakistan, while India controls the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej). Following the attack, India briefly halted water flow through the Baglihar dam on the Chenab and announced plans to enhance dam capacities and construct new reservoirs on the western rivers, moves that Pakistan condemned as “water warfare” and an “act of war.”
The understanding maintains the status quo on the Indus Water Treaty suspension, with India retaining the right to withhold hydrological data and proceed with dam construction. This gives India significant leverage over Pakistan, whose agriculture and hydropower sectors are heavily dependent on the Indus basin, with 80 per cent of its farm fields relying on these waters. While building large reservoirs will take years, India’s current infrastructure, including projects like the Kishanganga, Ratle, Shahpurkandi, and Ujh dams, allows it to control limited water flows, particularly during the dry season, exerting psychological and economic pressure on Pakistan. The understanding ensures that India faces no immediate obligation to resume treaty compliance, allowing it to continue its three-step plan to maximise water utilisation while keeping Pakistan on edge.
4. U.S. Endorsement of India’s War Doctrine
Perhaps the most far-reaching gain from the understanding is the reported U.S. acceptance of India’s new war doctrine, which equates any act of terrorism by non-state actors with an act of war by the sponsoring state, warranting full retaliation. This doctrine, articulated in the wake of the Pahalgam attack, marks a paradigm shift in India’s counterterrorism strategy, enabling it to hold Pakistan directly accountable for the actions of groups like LeT and TRF. The U.S., through President Trump’s vocal support and Secretary Rubio’s engagement, has signalled alignment with India’s position, enhancing its legitimacy on the global stage.
This endorsement strengthens India’s diplomatic hand, as it aligns a global superpower with its zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism. It also serves as a deterrent to Pakistan, which now faces the prospect of international isolation if it continues to support proxy groups. The U.S. mediation of the understanding, while framed as a neutral effort to de-escalate, implicitly acknowledges India’s right to respond forcefully to terrorist provocations, as evidenced by Trump’s “full support” for India post-Pahalgam. This gain positions India as a key player in shaping global counterterrorism norms, particularly in the context of state-sponsored terrorism.
5. U.S. Economic Pressure on Pakistan via IMF Loan Conditions
A critical factor in securing the stoppage of firing is the United States’ strategic use of economic leverage over Pakistan, specifically through the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Pakistan, grappling with a dire economic crisis characterised by dwindling foreign exchange reserves and a dependence on external loans, has been reliant on IMF bailouts to stabilise its economy. The U.S., wielding significant influence within the IMF, imposed stringent conditions on Pakistan’s access to a critical 1 billion dollar provisional loan release, linking it explicitly to Pakistan’s immediate acceptance of the understanding. Furthermore, the balance of Pakistan’s IMF loan package, essential for averting economic collapse, was made contingent on sustained compliance with the understanding terms, including halting support for terrorist activities.
This financial duress, orchestrated by the Trump administration, played a pivotal role in compelling Pakistan to initiate the DGMO-level talks that led to the understanding. Pakistan’s economy, often described as a “basket case,” is heavily dependent on IMF support to manage its 130 billion dollar external debt and fund basic imports like fuel and food. The threat of withholding the 1 billion dollar tranche, which was part of a broader 7 billion dollar Extended Fund Facility approved in 2024, posed an existential risk to Pakistan’s financial stability. The additional condition that the remaining funds would be released only upon verified compliance with the ceasefire terms, potentially monitored through intelligence sharing and diplomatic oversight, places Pakistan under unprecedented pressure to curb its proxy war tactics.
For India, this gain is twofold. First, it ensures that Pakistan’s agreement to the understanding was not merely a tactical retreat but a decision driven by economic desperation, reducing the likelihood of immediate violations. Second, it aligns U.S. economic policy with India’s security interests, creating a mechanism to hold Pakistan accountable beyond the battlefield. The IMF conditions effectively serve as a financial leash, compelling Pakistan to prioritise economic survival over its traditional strategy of supporting terrorism. This development also enhances India’s diplomatic leverage, as it demonstrates the U.S.’s willingness to use its global financial clout to back India’s counterterrorism objectives, further isolating Pakistan on the international stage.
Strategic and Political Implications
The ‘stoppage of firing’ understanding, while halting immediate military escalation, does not signal a return to normalcy in India-Pakistan relations. India’s gains, retribution for Pahalgam, degradation of Pakistan’s military and terrorist infrastructure, leverage over water resources, and international validation of its war doctrine have significantly tilted the strategic balance in its favour. These outcomes serve multiple purposes:
Domestic Political Consolidation: The successful execution of Operation Sindoor and the understanding have bolstered the Indian government’s image as a resolute defender of national security. Prime Minister Modi’s swift response, including cutting short a foreign visit to oversee the crisis, and the all-party consensus on a strong anti-terrorism stance, have unified the nation and strengthened public support for the government’s policies.
Regional Deterrence: By imposing heavy costs on Pakistan, India has reinforced its deterrence posture, signalling to both Pakistan and other adversaries that terrorist attacks will trigger disproportionate responses. The destruction of air bases and terror camps, coupled with the IWT suspension, underscores India’s willingness to escalate beyond conventional limits.
Global Positioning: The U.S. endorsement of India’s war doctrine and its role in mediating the understanding elevate India’s stature as a responsible nuclear power and a leader in the fight against terrorism. This contrasts with Pakistan’s increasing isolation, as its denials of involvement in the Pahalgam attack have been met with scepticism.
Challenges and Future Considerations
While India has secured significant gains, the understanding is not without risks. Pakistan’s agreement to the stoppage, reportedly initiated at its DGMO’s request, may reflect a desire to avoid further military losses, but it does not guarantee an end to its proxy war strategy.
Posts on X suggest mixed sentiments, with some Indian users questioning this understanding’s long-term benefits, arguing that it may allow Pakistan to regroup and continue funding terrorism. Others view it as a diplomatic victory for Pakistan, which avoids an official war while maintaining its “shadow war” tactics.
Moreover, Pakistan’s threats to pursue legal action through the World Bank over the IWT suspension and its warnings of treating water flow disruptions as an “act of war” indicate potential flashpoints. India must carefully calibrate its water strategy to maximise pressure without triggering a broader conflict, given the nuclear risks highlighted by Pakistan’s ambassador to Russia.
By avenging the Pahalgam attack, crippling Pakistan’s military and terrorist infrastructure, securing leverage over the Indus waters, and gaining U.S. backing for its war doctrine, India has strengthened its position as a regional power and a global advocate against terrorism.
However, this understanding is a tactical pause, not a resolution of the underlying conflict. As Dr. Jaishankar emphasised, India’s fight against terrorism remains uncompromising, and the understanding serves as a platform to consolidate its hard-won advantages while preparing for future contingencies.
Comments