IT may be too early to fully assess the multiple dimensions of the India-Pakistan crisis but some conclusions can be drawn.

Never before had the two countries attacked each other’s mainland with missile and air strikes as well as deployed new generation technology and weapons including drones. And never before had they edged so close to all-out war after becoming nuclear-wea­pon states.

The rapid escalation in the military confrontation went beyond the traditional battleground of occupied Kashmir and much further than previous crises to test deterrence. This was unprecedented but the way the crisis was defu­sed — by third-party intervention — followed a well-rehearsed path and mimicked the past.

The military, diplomatic and international dimensions of the crisis need to be carefully examined to make an assessment about the future. Predictably, both countries have drawn very different conclusions from the crisis. The Indian claim, voiced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is that a ‘new normal’ against terrorism has been established by India’s military actions, and that in future any terrorist attack will be deemed an act of war and responded to militarily by this ‘new’ doctrine.

Pakistan sees its kinetic response in the crisis to have demonstrated that conventional deterrence worked as it prevented India from escalating to an even bigger conflict and thwarted India’s effort to expand space for conventional war under the nuclear overhang. India’s loss of several Rafale aircraft symbolised the costs imposed by Pakistan’s retaliation. That and its ability to strike at multiple targets in the Indian mainland showed its conventional capabilities were able to force a ceasefire and neutralise India’s aims of ‘limited war’.

The reality is that India failed to achieve its military objectives in the conflict in spite of Modi’s unsubstantiated assertions of having destroyed “terrorist infrastructure”. It miscalculated the consequences of its actions. Its resort to a military ‘solution’ for a terror attack backfired. The claim that a new norm has been created by India flies in the face of facts.

The assertion that henceforth India would respond militarily if there is another terror attack is easier said than done, given the unedifying outcome of the latest crisis for New Delhi. With the credibility of Pakistan’s conventional deterrence re-established if not strengthened, the costs for India could be even higher the next time around for it to consider similar action. India got a new normal but not the one it wanted.

An uneasy truce prevails between India and Pakistan with dim prospects of any diplomatic re-engagement.

As both countries have drawn sharply conflicting conclusions and lessons from their military confrontation this heightens the risk for miscalculation and creates uncertainty ahead, especially if sustained communication is not established between them.

Contact between the DGMOs after the ceasefire has been important but the communication channel has to go beyond a technical or tactical level. There is little immediate possibility of this. This continues to make the situation fraught and unpredictable especially as Modi has declared India has “only suspended” military operations.

The diplomatic costs of the crisis were even greater for India than the military costs. By its reckless military actions, New Delhi lost significant international ground as global attention shifted from terrorism to the danger of a full-fledged war with India climbing up the escalatory ladder. This showed how poorly the Modi government assessed the international environment. The clash brought global attention back to Kashmir, to the Modi government’s discomfiture.

In the biggest blow to New Delhi, President Donald Trump in announcing the ceasefire offered to mediate on Kashmir. While this will be rejected by India, it catapults Kashmir to the global stage. India also failed to elicit any international support for its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. Even the US asked India to observe the treaty in private conversations with Indian officials.

Moreover, US intervention to defuse the crisis and Trump’s statements after the ceasefire re-hyphenated India and Pakistan, which India has tried so hard over the years to delink. Former Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran acknowledged to the Financial Times that the crisis set back New Delhi’s efforts to dissuade countries from treating India and Pakistan “on a par, and relations with each as interlinked”. “That hyphenation is now back,” he added. If a top Indian geopolitical goal is to join the world’s big league this crisis has produced the opposite outcome for New Delhi.

The Modi government also misjudged the evolving American position, assuming it would receive unequivocal support from Washington for its military action to avenge the Pahalgam terror incident. But the Trump administration sought to defuse the crisis from its very onset, urging restraint on New Delhi (and Islamabad) both publicly and privately.

As the crisis escalated, US diplomatic intervention intensified. This was reflected in multiple phone calls made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to top leaders in both countries and finally Vice President J.D. Vance’s intercession with PM Modi when the crisis looked like spinning out of control.

This led to the ceasefire President Trump announced and claimed credit for. The Indians neither publicly welcomed his announcement nor acknowledged the US role in ending the crisis. Modi made no mention of this in his post-ceasefire speech. Later, Indian officials refuted the US role. This contrasted sharply with the synchronous communication and close understanding between Pakistan and China throughout the crisis including in vital intelligence cooperation.

As for the political ramifications of the crisis, this provided a contrasting picture. The outcome divided India while uniting Pakistan. Modi came under mounting domestic pressure to explain what he achieved by Operation Sindoor. His right-wing base was furious at the truce.

With his strongman image dented, the opposition said Modi had much to answer for while the Congress president criticised the government for “strategic missteps”. In Pakistan there was jubilation at the outcome, rallying of national unity and renewal of national confidence while the public standing and reputation of the armed forces went up exponentially.

An uneasy truce now prevails between India and Pakistan with a fragile ceasefire that is being implemented in phases. Confidence-building measures are being taken to reduce military tensions and the “level of alertness”. But it will be a mistake to conclude that ‘normalcy’ will return anytime soon. The outlook remains troubled and fraught with uncertainty.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

Published in Dawn, May 19th, 2025