India-Pakistan ceasefire: Understanding the ‘thin’ Line of Control

New Delhi: War has no real winners, as the saying goes. It’s a philosophical statement, but in the brutal reality of conflict, victory and defeat are often measured by the scale of damage inflicted on the enemy. Everything else is just rhetoric.

In war, both sides make their own claims to win the confidence of their people. Those on the losing side often welcome a ceasefire, spinning it as a victory. This is precisely what Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif did in his address to the nation last night.

On the other hand, the side with the upper hand in the conflict may show signs of restraint or a forced agreement to a ceasefire, reflecting the complex realities of war.

Another measure of victory is whether the side achieved its primary objective—the very purpose for which the war began.

Based on the available evidence so far, it can be said that India has succeeded in achieving its objective of delivering an unimaginable punishment to the perpetrators of the Pahalgam terror attack.

Operation Sindoor, in a single blow, not only avenged the Pahalgam massacre but also accounted for all major past terrorist attacks by wiping out nine major terrorist headquarters across the border in a single, swift strike. The Indian Army has confirmed the elimination of five top terrorists, each a mastermind behind major attacks over the past 25-30 years.

The Indian Air Force, on Sunday, made it clear that "Operations were conducted in a deliberate and discreet manner, aligned with National Objectives."

Shortly after this, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh stated that the echoes of India’s military might have reached Rawalpindi, a clear testament to the success of Operation Sindoor.

Frustrated by the success of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan attempted a few retaliatory moves, but India responded by destroying 11 of its airbases.

Pakistan scrambled to multiple countries, desperately seeking to prevent further devastation. As evidenced by US President Trump’s latest statement, Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir threatened US Senator Marco Rubio with nuclear war, prompting the United States to intervene and reportedly convince Indian leadership to agree to a ceasefire.

Until this point, the US had avoided direct involvement in the conflict.

As for India, the ruling BJP released a video after the destruction of Pakistani airbases, comparing the Modi government’s decisive action against terrorism with the indecisive approach of previous Congress governments.

Not to be left behind, the Congress quickly responded to the ceasefire news by releasing images of the 1971 Pakistan surrender, praising Indira Gandhi and subtly taunting Modi for not achieving a similar outcome. This was an indirect swipe at Modi, implying that he failed to bring Pakistan to its knees. This messaging likely pleased both Congress supporters and Pakistan.

However, the Grand Old Party seems to have forgotten that the 1971 conflict was a full-scale war, waged when Pakistan was not a nuclear power. Comparing that era to the present is misleading. Does this mean Congress is unhappy with the ceasefire? Was its declaration of full support for the armed forces an endorsement for a full-blown war, just so it could later blame Modi for the fallout?

Now, the opposition is demanding a special session of Parliament to present proof of the Indian Army’s prowess, much like the calls for evidence after the Balakot airstrike.

But this time, the demand for proof won’t stick, as the public has already seen the video evidences of what transpired.

The opposition is now gearing up to attack the government, questioning why Trump, and not India, announced the ceasefire. But, would they have preferred Modi to announce it himself, despite India clearly having the upper hand in the operation? Whoever first confirms a ceasefire is often seen as the defeated party. In fact, Pakistan’s initial confirmation sent a message of surrender.

Trump’s over-the-top statement, where he declared his willingness to work for 1,000 years to resolve India-Pakistan issues, was dismissed by the Indian government as typical Trumpian exaggeration. The mere mention of 1,000 years indicates the hyperbole he is known for.

But who in the opposition has the foresight to grasp this? They’ll keep saying whatever comes to mind, hoping someone will believe it.

As for the online trolls who have taken to criticising the ceasefire, the government should simply ignore them. They are often driven by personal biases and lack the strategic understanding to appreciate the complexities of geopolitics. This also applies to those self-styled influencers who think their opinions shape national policy.

Trolls, in their own world, are often quite naive. They only hear what they want to, see what feeds their ego, and believe in half-truths that align with their narrow perspectives. When someone declared that this time India would take back PoK, and these innocent trolls felt let down when the conflict ended without it.

One question lingers for many: why did Pakistan violate the ceasefire?

NewsDrum, in its immediate coverage following the ceasefire announcement, reported that the terms of the agreement included the continued suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and a commitment from Pakistan to refrain from further military strikes—a move widely seen as a diplomatic and military surrender.

How could a government allegedly run by terrorists tolerate such humiliation? How could it face its people after accepting such terms? Pakistan’s celebratory firecrackers after the ceasefire in the form of cross-border firing and drone attacks were likely a desperate attempt to save face. Perhaps the Modi government anticipated this backlash.

Operation Sindoor stands as a living testament to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 56-inch chest and his strategic acumen on the global stage. After striking nine terrorist headquarters and destroying 11 airbases inside a nuclear-armed adversary's territory, if someone still has doubts about India's resolve, then responding to them is simply not necessary.