The May 2025 escalation between India and Pakistan, triggered by an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22 that killed 26 civilians, underscores the enduring volatility between these nuclear-armed neighbors. Reciprocal missile exchanges sparked international alarm, setting a dangerous precedent before a US-brokered ceasefire halted immediate hostilities on May 12. This confrontation, though echoing past cycles of violence and tentative calm, reveals significant geopolitical shifts that necessitates a reevaluation of mediation approaches to the Indo-Pakistan rivalry.
Significance of the Recent Flare-up
Unlike previous confrontations, the current tensions emerge from a fundamentally altered strategic landscape. Both nations grapple with domestic constraints that severely limit diplomatic flexibility — India’s rising nationalist sentiment amid electoral pressures has narrowed the government’s room for compromise, while Pakistan’s civilian leadership struggles against military influence and severe economic instability that restricts meaningful diplomatic initiatives.
China’s expanding regional influence has further reshaped conflict dynamics. Through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Beijing has deepened its economic and military partnership with Islamabad while simultaneously maintaining tense border relations with New Delhi. This triangular relationship has intensified mistrust and introduced calculations that extend far beyond bilateral grievances.
Moreover, shifting global alliances are undermining traditional mediation frameworks. As the United States increasingly positions India as a counterweight to Chinese influence, American neutrality appears compromised to Pakistan. This geopolitical realignment has created a diplomatic vacuum, complicating effective third-party interventions. Additionally, America’s inward turn, evident since the Trump administration, has diminished its engagement in global conflict mediation.
Historical Mediation Efforts
We have seen that seven decades of diplomacy between India and Pakistan highlight the challenges of achieving sustained peace.
Bilateral negotiations occasionally produced results, such as the 1972 Simla Accord and the 2004 Composite Dialogue, but domestic political pressures and violence repeatedly derailed progress. Once trust deteriorated, rebuilding became exceedingly difficult.
International mediation has also struggled. The UN’s observer mission in Kashmir (UNMOGIP) has stalled due to fundamental disagreements over its role. India rejects internationalizing Kashmir, while Pakistan seeks greater UN involvement based on longstanding Security Council resolutions.
US diplomacy has succeeded primarily in acute crises, leveraging immediate risks rather than addressing underlying disputes comprehensively. Interventions during the Kargil conflict in 1999 and the 2001-2002 standoff underscore effective short-term crisis management but fall short of lasting resolutions. Recent US-India alignment diminishes Washington’s credibility with Islamabad, limiting American diplomatic effectiveness.
Other global powers have struggled similarly. Russia’s historical influence has faded due to shifting priorities, while China’s deep partnership with Pakistan creates inherent bias, making Beijing an unsuitable mediator for India.
Unofficial Track II dialogues have maintained communication during formal diplomatic impasses, fostering innovative ideas and relationships that occasionally influence policy. However, these informal exchanges remain limited by their lack of direct decision-making power.
What Has Worked and What Hasn’t
Looking across decades of diplomatic intervention, certain patterns distinguish successful crisis management from spectacular failures.
The interventions that actually moved the needle shared a pragmatic focus on immediate dangers rather than grand ambitions for comprehensive peace. When American diplomats shuttled between Islamabad and New Delhi during the 2001-2002 standoff, they weren’t trying to solve Kashmir — they were simply preventing nuclear-armed armies from stumbling into war. This narrow focus has allowed both sides to step back without appearing to abandon core positions.
The most creative breakthroughs occurred when official channels worked alongside unofficial ones. While governments maintained formal positions, former diplomats, academics, and business leaders could float ideas, test reactions, and build personal relationships that occasionally influenced policy. This multi-layered approach created space for innovation that purely governmental negotiations lacked.
Spectacular failures, meanwhile, followed predictable patterns. High-profile international pressure campaigns routinely backfired by triggering nationalist reflexes in both countries. When outsiders publicly demanded concessions, they inadvertently made compromise politically toxic for domestic leaders who couldn’t afford to appear weak. The louder the international criticism, the more entrenched positions became.
Similarly, externally designed peace frameworks repeatedly collapsed because they lacked genuine buy-in from the parties themselves. Solutions crafted in Washington, New York, or Geneva often ignored political realities in South Asian capitals, creating documents that gathered dust rather than sustainable agreements.
What the Ceasefire Means for Bilateral Relations
The recent ceasefire represents a tactical pause rather than a strategic breakthrough. Modi’s public statements since the agreement suggest India views this not as an opportunity for reconciliation but as validation of what he calls a “new normal” of proactive military responses to terrorism.
In his first address after the ceasefire, Modi declared that India would be “monitoring every step of Pakistan” and that any future terrorist attack would be met with decisive retaliation. His warning that “talks and terror cannot go together” and “water and blood cannot flow together”—referencing India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty—signals a fundamental hardening of New Delhi’s position.
The domestic political context reinforces this interpretation. With Bihar assembly elections approaching, Modi’s aggressive stance toward Pakistan aligns with his image as a strong leader who doesn’t hesitate to use force. The ceasefire allows him to claim both military success and responsible restraint—a politically potent combination.
Pakistan’s response has been equally escalatory, promoting Army Chief Asim Munir to Field Marshal—the country’s highest military rank—just days after the ceasefire. This makes him only the second person in Pakistan’s 78-year history to hold the title, following Ayub Khan who awarded it to himself after seizing power in a military coup. The promotion, is for “defeating the enemy” during the conflict, signals Pakistan’s military establishment is also consolidating power and claiming victory rather than seeking de-escalation. Both sides appear to be drawing triumphalist rather than conciliatory lessons from the confrontation, making genuine dialogue unlikely in the near term.
The Diminished Role of the UN
The UN faces profound credibility issues beyond traditional India-Pakistan constraints. Its ineffectiveness in addressing global crises, including Gaza and Ukraine, questions its relevance as a mediator. India’s opposition to UN involvement in Kashmir, coupled with Pakistan’s reliance on outdated resolutions, compounds these challenges. The United Nations Monitoring Observer Group In Pakistan (UNMOGIP) remains largely symbolic, reflecting broader institutional paralysis rather than effective conflict management.
Realistic Approaches for Conflict Management
The May 2025 ceasefire offers limited immediate hope for lasting peace but provides essential breathing space for pragmatic diplomacy. Both India and Pakistan have demonstrated military restraint when confronted by nuclear escalation risks, indicating effective deterrence mechanisms despite deep-seated mistrust.
The international community should pursue incremental confidence-building measures, sustained engagement, and realistic expectations, aiming to manage rather than resolve fundamental disagreements. While peace remains elusive, the imperative to prevent catastrophic escalation requires continuous diplomatic vigilance by the United States.
Farah Jan is an International Relations Senior Lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from Rutgers University and Masters in Law from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Jan specializes in interstate rivalries, nuclear proliferation, and South Asian and Middle Eastern security politics.
