Decoding a ‘Frozen Conflict’ Between India and Pakistan: Who is the Winner? 

Exactly a month back, on May 10, 2025, a ceasefire agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attack and subsequent military confrontation. Both sides continue to claim victory, sending emissaries worldwide to project the narrative of a successful military and territorial dominance. 

Although sending emissaries from India suggests an afterthought and containment, it is prudent to reflect on what the two countries achieved post-conflict escalation. 

Where do India and Pakistan stand?

India, domestically, has claimed the victory and taken revenge for the Pahalgam attack, suggesting it has wiped out more than 100 militants in several locations in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the Punjab province of Pakistan. Sensational reporting has significantly damaged India’s image, reducing its television media to a subject of ridicule on international platforms. 

Such hyperbolic coverage around the India-Pakistan conflict has blurred distinctions, undermining the country’s global standing. Ironically, the same media channels regularly propagate disinformation in domestic politics, but as this episode dented India’s global image, the ruling party was appallingly forced to intervene, urging media channels to curb misinformation. This post-truth media coverage also posed challenges for international media, complicating fact-checking. As a result, India has had to engage in damage control, dispatching emissaries to restore its global image and promote a favourable narrative over Pakistan.

Also read: Eight Questions to the Narendra Modi Government After a Terror Attack, an Operation and a Ceasefire

Domestically, the situation was equally troubling. After the ceasefire, social media attacks on Vikram Misri (MEA) and his daughter underscored a lack of understanding about the gravity of war – it is not a spectacle to be trivialised. Not only did such populist and chauvinistic propaganda raise questions from within the country, but it also did not help India’s image globally during the conflict. Moreover, certain strategic affairs experts also questioned the rationale behind agreeing to the ceasefire, arguing that India was on the verge of victory. 

Yet, one pressing question remains: when two nuclear-armed nations are at war, can there ever truly be an absolute victory for either side?

Pakistan, on the other hand, has also declared its victory, notably expressing gratitude to China and the United States for their support in achieving this outcome. However, under the leadership of hardliner Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan appears to have regressed rather than progressed.

Asim Munir has gained everything possible from this recent conflict, and Pakistan has lost more than it can imagine. Promoting Asim Munir to the position of Field Marshall amidst this, after Ayub Khan, has further weakened the institutional balance in Pakistan. Furthermore, the Field Marshal has successfully veneered Pakistan with another layer of extremism by (re)claiming Kashmir as its jugular vein,  creating an alternative and stronger narrative about vulnerable Pakistan. 

Pakistan has successfully internationalised the Kashmir issue (against India’s will), and the military in Pakistan has again found its relevance, leaving little hope for democracy to return. Economically, the International Monetary Fund has given a lifeline to Pakistan, but the question is, how long and till when will the Pakistan military be able to keep its citizens in this subservient regime?

Kashmir and Kashmiriyat

Although a large part of the Western media (Europe and America) is quite occupied with Palestine-Israel and Ukraine-Russia conflicts, it doesn’t mean that the simmering conflict between India and Pakistan is forgotten. The issue of Kashmir stands internationalised once again and hyphenated – especially with Donald Trump repeatedly seeking credit for the ceasefire.

With people of Kashmir avoided and neglected in this conversation once again; the issue is centred on national security and pride for India. Only now, a relief package has been announced, but what about the emotional package that the people of Kashmir expect to revive the spirit of Kashmiriyat? 

Except for a handful of journalists, no one has captured the emotions of Kashmiris and the spirit of Kashmiriyat in the post-conflict period. The return of tourism has been equated as “normalcy”; the question is, is tourism the only benchmark for normalcy in Kashmir? 

We are still dodging the question of what Kashmiris want and what is their characterisation of normalcy; Delhi continues to rule, at times negating the elected state government and deciding for the people of Kashmir, precisely what the military regime in Pakistan expects India to do. 

Water and blood

The narrative that “blood and water cannot flow together”, as conveyed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has maintained India’s stance for the abeyance of the Indus Waters Treaty. The politicisation of IWT started in India, with some experts claiming that Jawaharlal Nehru made a weak choice signing the treaty, and proposing to scrap it. However, these experts forget that if India wants to project itself as vishwaguru and a benevolent hegemon, it must fight terrorism and not Pakistani farmers. 

Also read: India Needs a Strategic Reset After Pahalgam Terror Attack, Operation Sindoor

It is worth being cognisant of the changing climate and water and energy requirements in the Indian subcontinent but it would be prudent for both countries to re-negotiate without harming the population that has depended on the IWT for decades. 

India must also rethink its strategy to blindly construct hydropower projects in the eastern and western Himalayan systems. Instead, India should go a step further, to use hard and soft diplomacy measures to restrain China's efforts to build dams in the Indus and the Brahmaputra river basins. 

Beneficiaries of the Pahalgam conflict

China has not only been a silent observer of the India-Pakistan confrontation but is also enjoying the spoils of victory. As India diverted its attention towards the Western sector and was domestically consumed by the fake news media narrative, it alluded that Indian democratic governance is no better than that of China. Pakistan also used several Chinese-made weapon systems, including the Chengdu J-10 aircraft against India’s Rafale fighter jets, allowing them to test their equipment on the battlefield and providing opportunities to improve and progress. 

Apart from the Chinese, the United States – particularly President Donald Trump – found an opportunity to present himself as a global leader in brokering a ceasefire. Even before the two countries announced the ceasefire, Donald Trump went on social media to self-congratulate, leaving India in complete surprise and disbelief. The situation almost felt like a friend’s betrayal, leaving India with limited global support.

Where do we go from here?

Firstly, India and Pakistan have to accept that they can choose their allies and friends worldwide, but they cannot choose their neighbours. Since 2014, India's relations with its neighbours have been sporadically unsteady, partly due to its domestic focus on Hindutva-driven policies and a tendency to frame external challenges regarding regional rivalries. Even if this approach does not influence the neighbours, it gives the impression that India is not a secular state – that it accepts its minorities but these groups must not demand social and political power.

To rebuild trust, India must reinvent its relationships with its neighbours and reinvest diplomatically in its regional image, especially in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attack. Strong relationships with neighbouring countries are indispensable, particularly during times of war. They provide stability, prevent the escalation of regional disputes, and allow India to focus on its primary conflicts without being distracted by additional tensions. 

However, the India-Pakistan conflict has also exposed critical weaknesses in India’s regional diplomacy. While Bhutan maintained its traditional neutral stance, China and Bangladesh – the two most significant neighbours – appeared unsupportive.

Pakistan’s military regime continues to exploit India’s internal communal divisions, leveraging post-truth media narratives and rising majoritarianism to destabilise Kashmir and other sensitive regions. This is even as domestically, Pakistan’s regime has repeatedly failed to address its internal challenges, driving the nation deeper into economic instability and widespread poverty.

The recent diplomatic attacks and military ceasefire between India and Pakistan only seem to suggest a ‘frozen conflict’, which can erupt again based on the domestic conditions and political landscape. Dialogue, along with diplomacy, is the only way forward. 

There have been a couple of instances where the two countries have come close to finding a peaceful solution. However, this time, if the two countries have to find a peaceful solution, it will require a genuine commitment to fight terrorism from the Pakistani military and the Indian government to reaffirm India’s secular social fabric.

Sumit Vij is Assistant Professor, Wageningen University, the Netherlands. 

Anamika Barua is Professor, Indian Institute of Technology-Guwahati, India.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.