I first came to know about the ceasefire agreement reached between India and Pakistan when a friend sent me President Donald Trump's announcement on social media. I could not believe it, as India had all along been rejecting any third-party involvement in its bilateral relations. In fact, the Simla Treaty specifically rules out any such intervention.

That my doubts were misplaced became apparent when India and Pakistan announced a ceasefire effective from 5 pm on the fourth day the undeclared war began. Of course, the defence personnel who briefed the media specifically mentioned that Pakistan had approached India first for a ceasefire.

A large majority of the people on both sides of the border and the Line of Control heaved a sigh of relief when the ceasefire agreement was announced. Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung had famously remarked that it did not matter what colour a cat was, as long as it caught the mice.

It is not the first time that India and Pakistan have clashed. What lent fear to the clash was the possibility of a nuclear strike, which would cause unimaginable damage, like the vaporisation of millions. There were independent media reports that Pakistan turned panicky when an Indian missile hit very close to its nuclear control system.

No, Pakistanis were not the only ones who felt perturbed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where nuclear bombs were first used, are just tea parties compared to a mega banquet that modern nuclear-tipped weapons can arrange—if it is proper to use such a metaphor. To use another one, it was just cough and cold against terminal cancer.

There is no doubt that India has always proved its superiority in conventional warfare. This time, it could prove that if it wanted, it could hit any target in Pakistan. True, Pakistan claims that it hit some Indian fighter aircraft, including the state-of-the-art fighter from France.

Yet, what is galling for India is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's bosom "friend" Trump treated both countries as equals. Initially, he dismissed both as traditional rivals fighting for 1,500 years, when Choudhary Rahmat Ali first coined the term Pakistan (Land of the Pure) only in 1933.

Trump's Vice-President JD Vance said early on, "We're not going to get involved in the middle of a war that's fundamentally none of our business." Days later, he and his Secretary of State claimed to have spent the night persuading both sides to eschew war and sign a ceasefire agreement.

True, most countries, including China, denounced the terrorist act at Pahalgam in Kashmir on April 22, but few came forward to support India's claim that it had its origin in Pakistan. Russia, a traditional ally, and America, India's emerging strategic partner, were unequivocal in their condemnation of terror.

There is every reason to believe that the four who struck at Baisaran, killing 26 men, including a local Muslim pony-man and a Christian, came possibly from Pakistan or were a sleeping module in India. Three weeks later, they have not been apprehended or eliminated, while several houses were allegedly demolished for no rhyme or reason.

When the terrorists at Baisaran ascertained the religious identity of their victims before killing them, their aim was to create communal violence all over the country. Except for a few incidents where Muslim establishments were targeted by the saffron brigade, the people remained by and large peaceful.

Were there no warnings of the terrorist attack?

On March 11, 2025, the Jaffar Express, a Pakistani passenger train travelling from Quetta to Peshawar with at least 380 passengers on board, was hijacked by the Balochistan Liberation Army. It is Pakistan's claim that India was behind it. To cover up for his loss of face, the Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir had been speaking nonsense since then.

A few days after, he said, "Our forefathers believed that we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life. Our religion is different. Our customs are different…" That was the foundation of the Two-Nation Theory." Six days later, an attack takes place where the religion of the victims is asked, and they are told to recite the Kalima to escape the bullets.

What more proof was needed of his diabolical intentions and the signals he gave to the terrorists, who could be part of his army? Never before, since Pakistan came into being, did an Army chief take up the issue of religious differences when, actually, Indians and Pakistanis are similar in a hundred and one ways. By the way, India has more Muslims than Pakistan. Also, it was Savarkar who argued that Muslims and Hindus could not coexist as a nation, long before Jinnah supported the theory.

What is noteworthy is that despite such clear warnings of an impending attack, the meadows of Baisaran were kept free of security forces in a state where six lakh or more security personnel have been deployed. Nobody has, unfortunately, been held responsible for the security lapse. In fact, the security personnel reached there at least one and a half hours after the terrorists slowly identified those to be shot.

Those who bay for Trump's blood don't realise that when the Kargil conflict occurred, it was Bill Clinton's intervention that forced the Pakistanis to vacate the heights in Kargil from where they had a commanding view of the only highway that connected Srinagar with Leh. Their strategic intention was to make it the new Line of Control.

As India-born strategic expert Tanvi Madan wrote in The Economist, "Hostilities between India and Pakistan have never just been bilateral. America, China, and others have closely watched and often been involved in their wars and lesser spikes in tensions. This was true even before the two South Asian countries became declared nuclear powers in 1998, but that turning point only heightened the stakes and intensified international interest."

Of course, unlike Trump, Clinton was discreet. Even so, Strobe Talbott, an American official who had several rounds of talks with then Defence Minister Jaswant Singh, disclosed in his book 'Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb' intricate details of how Clinton put pressure on Nawaz Sharif, though it is doubtful whether General Pervez Musharraf had taken his PM into confidence when he captured the Kargil heights during the winter when both sides vacate the area.

Unlike Clinton, Trump is desperate to win the Nobel for Peace. He could not end the Ukraine war or convert Gaza into a Middle East Riviera owned by the US or make Canada the 51st state of America or reoccupy the Panama Canal. So he found an opportunity in the India-Pakistan war to gain brownie points.

He, in any case, has become an international clown. How else will anyone describe him after he published an Artificial Intelligence-generated picture that showed Trump as the new Pope? His attention span is limited, and he is unlikely to follow up on the ceasefire. Now the big question is: has the ceasefire ended the possibility of another confrontation? A definitive answer cannot be given.

Modi's address to the nation after the ceasefire was significant, as it amounted to unfolding a new strategic doctrine. He says India will hit back in a decisive manner if there is a terror incident in India. In other words, there will be no tolerance for terror attacks. Which means all that is required to start a war with disastrous consequences is a terrorist attack in Kashmir or elsewhere.

This is a dangerous proposition. India's GDP is 12 times larger than Pakistan's. Its economy is in such a bad shape that it had to take a loan of $1 billion from the International Monetary Fund. Most probably, the money would be utilised to beef up its security. If it is a failed state, as many in India believe, it will find its own grave.

Why should India be allowed to be hyphenated with Pakistan? It was believed that in conventional warfare, India was superior to Pakistan. What made them "equal" was Pokhran II when AB Vajpayee was the Prime Minister. On that day, I saw some mad fellows in Delhi raising slogans against Pakistan. One top BJP leader even challenged Pakistan to wage a war against India.

The euphoria was short-lived, as Pakistan conducted its own nuclear test and, for once, India lost its superiority. There is a Malayalam saying that even if a neerkoli—a non-poisonous water snake—bites you, it can spoil your sleep. Pakistan is like that snake. In contrast, India has aspirations to emerge as the fourth-largest economy in the world.

Rhetoric is one thing and practicality is another. Modi has rightly said that India will not talk to Pakistan except on ending terror and returning Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to India. He also said that water and blood will not be allowed to flow together. Also, there will be no trade between India and Pakistan. It's all fine, but it was the same Prime Minister who air-dashed to Pakistan to take part in a wedding celebration hosted by Nawaz Sharif.

Operation Sindoor failed to hit Masood Azhar, though many of his close relatives were killed. He was in an Indian jail, and it was the Vajpayee government which released him. What's worse, Minister Jaswant Singh accompanied him in the plane till it reached Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he was released. Of course, nobody has any sympathy for his bereavement as the death of 26 men has orphaned their children, widowed their wives, and grievously affected their parents, relatives and friends. It mattered more than Sindoor!

India is a full-fledged democracy while Pakistan is a military-run state, though it has a façade of a democracy. Yet, the irony is that while the Pakistan Parliament was in session, ours was not. It is one thing for the Prime Minister to address the nation and quite another to address Parliament, which is the highest representative body of the people.

A very interesting aspect of the war was the virtual non-involvement of the political leadership in Pakistan. It was started by the army using its own actors. Of course, the political leadership could not disown the Army when India had already launched its attacks at nine places in both PoK and Pakistan's heartland in Punjab.

While the war brought India's technological prowess to the fore, the performance of the media—especially those owned by business magnates—was pathetic. Television channels seem to believe that they could say anything they wanted. Discussions were turned into raising war cries.

For once, I felt how distanced they were from reality. Many of them had egg on their faces when they reported that Karachi was destroyed, Islamabad was captured, etc. etc. I recalled how great those Doordarshan days were. Of course, at that time also, some lies could have been put out. I remember India claiming success during the 1962 war, but All India Radio did not report that Peking was about to fall to advancing Indian troops.

For once, I realised that jingoism has no limits. One of the finest moments of the war was when a Muslim Colonel and her counterpart in the Air Force, a Hindu, briefed the nation about the progress in the war. In the armed forces, there is no segregation on the grounds of religion. Muslims played a significant role in all the wars in India. In this war, too, a Muslim soldier lost his life.

This lady joined the Indian Army when Manmohan Singh was the Prime Minister. Why mention it? Because after the Agniveer scheme was introduced, few Muslims and Christians join the forces. Actually, the scheme is a disaster. The government wants to save some money by denying them some benefits, but it is playing with fire.

The army is short of staff. Rightfully enough, no recruitments happened during the COVID pandemic. The shortfall needs to be filled at the earliest. Technology is fine, but technology is not a substitute for human resources. There should be a balance between the two. In short, India must guard against provocation and avoid falling into a trap set by failed states or political adventurists. Sustainable peace demands sober strategy, not populist posturing.