DND Thought Center Special Report
Once again, India and Pakistan averted a full-fledged war when India demanded a ceasefire after Pakistan launched “Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos” in response to India’s “Operation Sindoor”.
After a long pause, the global powers such as the United States have again accepted that peace cannot be achieved in the Indo-Pak subcontinent unless the Kashmir issue is resolved. Kashmir issue was once again in the UNSC meeting where Pakistan deliberated with P-5 nations, telling them how India had been involved in cross-border terrorism inside Pakistan, launching false flags against its public to defame Pakistan, and it had been purging Muslim Kashmiris inside Illegally Indian Occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan’s Kashmir policy has remained unchanged since the first Kashmir war, and its diplomatic efforts have been both bilateral as well as raising the issue at various international forums
Simla Agreement
Pakistan advocates the implementation of the UN resolution, as the Simla Agreement (1972) does not nullify the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on Kashmir, rather, clause 1 of the Agreement confirms that “the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries” and Charter of the United Nations demands the implementation of all resolutions passed by the UN Security Council.
The agreement acknowledges “the recognized position of either side”. Pakistan’s position, recognized by the UN, includes the ongoing UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, which remain on the Council’s agenda. The Simla Agreement doesn’t contain any clause that automatically nullifies UN resolutions related to Kashmir. The agreement explicitly protects the “recognized position of either side,” which for Pakistan includes the UNSC’s stance on Kashmir. The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising the Kashmir issue at the United Nations, and that is what Pakistan did recently, and reminded UNSC members that its resolutions are awaiting their implementation.
What We Know about UNSC Resolutions over the Kashmir Issue?
In the outcome of the Indo-Pak brief war in 1948, India went to United Nations Security Council for ceasefire sensing defeat in Valley, asking UNSC to play its role to stop war and a declaration was passed and the dispute was referred to UN under chapter 6 of the U.N Charter relating to the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Since then, the Security Council of the United Nations (UNSC) has adopted several resolutions on the settlement of the Kashmir conflict. Each of these involves the determination of Kashmir’s status by transparent and free elections. But India does not agree. India currently holds 600,000 troops in the region, which is considered the most armed zone in the world. More than 180,000 troops have been deployed in recent days.
- #38 (1948) was adopted by the Security Council at its 229th meeting held on 17 January 1948.
- #39 (1948) was adopted by the Security Council at its 230th meeting held on 20 January 1948,
- #47 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 286th meeting held on 21 April 1948,
- #51 (1948) was adopted by the Security Council at its 312th meeting held on 3 June 1948,
- #80 (1950) adopted by the Security Council at its 470th meeting held on 14 March 1950,
- #91 (1951) adopted by the Security Council at its 539th meeting held on 30 March 1951,
- #96 (1951) adopted by the Security Council at its 566th meeting held on 10 November 1951,
- #98 (1952) adopted by the Security Council at its 611th meeting held on 23 December 1952,
- #122 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 765th meeting held on 24 January 1957,
- #123 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 774th meeting held on 21 February 1957,
- #209 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1237th meeting held on 4 September 1965,
- #210 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1238th meeting held on 6 September 1965,
- #211 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1242nd meeting held on 20 September 1965,
- #214 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1245th meeting held on 27 September 1965,
- #215 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1251st meeting held on 5 November 1965,
- #303 (1971) adopted by the Security Council at its 1606th meeting held on 6 December 1971,
- #307 (1971) was adopted by the Security Council at its 1616th meeting held on 21 December 1971.
What do UN resolutions say about the Kashmir issue?
The complaint relating to Kashmir was initiated by India in the Security Council.
The Council explicitly and by implication rejected India’s claim that Kashmir is legally Indian territory.
The resolutions established self-determination as the governing principle for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. This is the world body’s commitment to the people of Kashmir.
The resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions.
The Root Cause
There is no doubt that the roots of the conflict existed in British India before 1947, but there can also be no doubt that the direct trigger of the overt conflict was how the subcontinent was partitioned following the end of the British Raj, sowing seeds for future conflicts between India and Pakistan. The conflict is now entrenched to such an extent that it can trigger an unimaginable nuclear conflict in the region, and Indian Prime Minister Modi is bent on nuclearizing his kinetic defeat in the conventional warfare sphere. Professor T. V. Paul (McGill University) in his paper “The India–Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry” says:
The India–Pakistan rivalry remains one of the most enduring and unresolved conflicts of our times. It began with the birth of the two states in 1947, and it has continued ever since, with the periodic resumption of wars and crises. The conflict has affected every dimension of interstate and societal relations between the two countries and, despite occasional peace initiatives, shows no signs of abating. Professor Paul understands that the root cause of India-Pakistan’s rivalry is the territorial claim over the state of Jammu and Kashmir. He believes that as long as this problem persists, their relationship will not improve.
Both countries have tried to achieve a solution through various means, such as wars, multilateral dialogues, mediation, and bilateral negotiations, but have failed to achieve anything concrete.
Kashmir is Not Forgotten globally
Former National Security Adviser Lt Gen (retd) Nasser Janjua believes:
Pakistan must reach US President Donald Trump without delay, telling him to fulfill his promise to lead Indo-Pak talks on the Kashmir issue. Prime Minister of Pakistan Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif should not let this opportunity go away because Pakistan cannot get anything through Indo-Pak bilateral talks. The aggressor (India) does not ease the victim (Pakistan).
Political will on the Indian side is absent
Maj Gen (Retd) Zahid Mahmood is of the view that the success of any political talk critically depends upon the political will to address core issues and resolve conflicts. He said:
In the Pakistan-India context, political will on the Indian side appears not only lacking but entirely absent. This friction serves as a key instrument in their domestic political narrative, where hate against Muslims and other minorities in India is a cornerstone policy to win Hindu votes.
The chances of immediate success in the dialogue are slim. However, Pakistan needs to put everything on the table to give dialogue and the peaceful settlement of conflicts between Pakistan and India a chance. These conflicts prominently include Kashmir, terrorism in Pakistan, and the newly established Indus Waters Treaty, which India holds in abeyance. Pakistan’s military has successfully crafted an extraordinary notion of victory, impacting diplomatic ascendancy and practical pedestals for negotiations. Now, it depends on the Pakistani political and diplomatic core to mount an excellent maneuver to take advantage of military success in Operation Bunyanil Marsoos.
Pakistan must exert diplomatic pressure from regional and international powers to keep the dialogue between India and Pakistan not only on track but also in a delivering mode. “Peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of justice,” as Martin Luther King Jr. stated. This pursuit of justice, coupled with strategic diplomacy, is essential for meaningful progress.
Global powers realize the grave situation in South Asia
Air Vice Marshal (Retd) Ijaz Malik believes:
Pakistan has always been a proponent of conflict resolution through dialogue. Indo-Pak composite dialogue in the past has always been stalled because of an ever-changing stance of India. Kashmir being the core conflict, both countries have different orientations about that. While Pakistan pursues a peaceful resolution of the issue as per the aspirations of Kashmiri people, India just wants to manage this issue. In the past, India has categorically rejected any possibility of third-party mediation on Kashmir. Now that an serious effort has been made by the USA and somewhat by UK, still there is a lot of opposition by political leaders in India as they regard Kashmir as an internal issue of the indian union, particularly post-repealing Article 370 of the indian constitution, which provided a special status to Jammu & Kashmir.
Chances of any meaningful full outcome through bilateral or mediated talks are dependent on indian flexibility and sincerity of mediators to pressurise India in support of peace in this volatile region threatened by nuclear brinkmanship
BJP’s left no room for diplomacy
Former Director General Foreign Service Academy, Islamabad, Ambassador Mazhar Javed, is of the view:
Bilateral talks are always helpful and do bring about a positive change; that is the premise on which bilateral diplomacy is based. That, however, requires an enabling environment, and at the moment, India seems to be lacking that. He believes:
For more than a decade, New Delhi has been harping on the note of terrorism, and that terrorism and talks cannot go together. That position might have appeased the BJP’s extremists, but from a diplomatic perspective it is and it was a blunder. It simply meant restricting space for diplomacy. Also, for any such talks to be meaningful, they ought to include all issues, including and in particular the core issue of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Is Modi-led India ready for that? Then trust deficit, which is at its height now, needs to be bridged through some Confidence Building Measures. In summary, while Indo-Pak bilateral talks could bring about a positive change, I do not see an enabling environment or a mood for that in New Delhi.
Indo-Pak bilateral talks yielded no results
Ambassador Jamil Ahmed Khan is of the view that in the past, bilateral talks and composite dialogues between India and Pakistan have not yielded significant results. However, the current scenario appears to be shifting. He maintained:
India’s hegemonic approach has often been perceived by the global community as indicative of its status as a major power in the region, both economically and militarily. Recent developments, particularly the performance of the Pakistan Air Force and Army, have challenged this perception of military supremacy.
There is a growing realization of the nuclear threat that looms over humanity, a “dagger at the neck,” as articulated by some scientists. Donald Trump has also indicated that India and Pakistan were on the brink of nuclear conflict. This alarming reality has sent shockwaves through major global players. As a result, the core issue at the heart of the conflict—Kashmir—has resurfaced, alongside the diminishing narrative that India has historically used to link terrorism with Pakistan.
Furthermore, the dispute can no longer be viewed as purely bilateral, especially following India’s acceptance of U.S. mediation on May 10 for a ceasefire. This shift suggests that the traditional framework of bilateral agreements may not be as universally accepted by the United Nations and the international community as it once was.
In this context, renewed bilateral dialogue holds the potential for meaningful outcomes, particularly with strict international oversight. Such collaboration could pave the way for resolving the Kashmir issue. However, it is crucial to remember that tensions remain high. As the DG ISPR has noted, the situation can escalate rapidly if India were to launch another attack against Pakistan or if it were to violate the Indus Water Treaty by halting water supply to Pakistan. While there are hopeful signs for dialogue, the path forward is fraught with challenges that require careful navigation and international engagement.
Talks can create a conducive atmosphere
Ambassador Sarwar Ali Naqvi considers that:
Bilateral talks can help reduce tension, but the differences between the two countries are long-standing issues and cannot be resolved quickly. Holding talks can create a conducive atmosphere, but resolving the issues would be difficult to achieve. Pakistan would like to initiate discussion on the full respect and implementation of the Indus Basin Treaty of 1960, and it would like to open a discussion on the Kashmir issue regarding the rights of the Kashmiri people. India would raise the issue of terrorism. Pakistan would be amenable to discuss it, on condition that Indian sponsored terrorism inside Pakistan is discussed. There are some other issues, Siachin, Sir Creek, and others, which can be addressed in a structured dialogue. The bilateral talks can bring about a change if these are addressed.
A change in the South Asian geopolitical landscape
Academician and former Federal Minister Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed is of the view:
We have to understand that the ground realities have changed after May 10. I would say that around one round of India’s aggression has totally altered the South Asian geopolitical landscape. It has revived the Kashmir issue. Pakistan has restored the deterrence even in conventional conflict. India is totally on the defensive militarily. We have beaten them and given them a bloody nose in both round one and round two and India’s main sponsor main patron The United States of America and the President Trump has taken a different position which India never expected equating Pakistan and India as equal partners plus he has been showering lavish praise and Pakistan and the people of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan are brilliant people Pakistan produces incredible products and that Pakistan in the United States should be good close trading partners so in that context I think India has suffered the most serious Military diplomatic strategic political, and media blow to their image and to their prestige since the 1962 India China war when India Nehru also miscalculated in a big way and they suffered the consequences of that miscalculation after 63 years Modi has been cut down to size and I feel that in this new situation The talks between Pakistan and India have to be result oriented focusing on issues that are important for future peace, security and stability and foremost man issues of force is the issue of Jammu and Kashmir followed by the Indus water treaty followed by Indian sponsor state terrorism against Pakistan and India’s attempts to stabilise Pakistan so I feel that unless this log jam is cleared Pakistan‘s policy makers especially the military high Command have strategic clarity on this issue and I think that strategic clarity shows that India can no longer use any other employees or any other means to put Pakistan on the defensive. The situation has qualitatively changed, and India now has to respond to these new realities; otherwise, India itself is diplomatically isolated in South Asia and the region as well as globally.
Long-term transformation in India-Pakistan relations remains uncertain
Former Secretary of Information Shafqat Jalil thinks:
India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors with a history of conflict, have periodically engaged in bilateral talks aimed at improving relations. The tumultuous relationship between the two neighbouring countries has been marked by conflict, distrust, and intermittent attempts at peace since their independence in 1947.
Can external mediation bring meaningful and lasting change to India-Pakistan relations? India firmly rejects any external role, insisting on bilateral resolution. The path to progress is fraught with challenges. A deep trust deficit persists between the two nations, shaped by decades of wars, insurgencies, and high-profile terror attacks.
India remains firm on the need for concrete action against terrorism, while Pakistan views the resolution of the Kashmir dispute as central to any peace process. New Delhi insists that Pakistan must cease its support for cross-border terrorism before meaningful talks can resume.
The Modi government faces pressure from nationalist factions opposed to any perceived concessions to Pakistan. The military establishment in Pakistan, which retains significant control over foreign policy, often prioritizes Kashmir over normalization with India.
The recent India-Pakistan stand-off came to an end due to the role played by US President Donald Trump, along with Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This diplomatic intervention culminated in a full and immediate ceasefire agreement announced on May 10, 2025. In a tweet posted by United States President Mr Donald Trump, he revealed that a ceasefire has been reached between India and Pakistan
The US mediation efforts involved marathon telephone diplomacy by Rubio and direct outreach by Vance to key leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani officials. Rubio engaged with a broad spectrum of Pakistani and Indian officials, emphasizing restraint and the avoidance of miscalculation that could lead to full-scale war. President Trump publicly took credit for the ceasefire. It marked a de-escalation from the brink of war.
According to the United States, both sides agreed to halt hostilities and begin talks on a broader set of issues at a neutral location. India was quick to downplay any immediate decision to engage in talks beyond the “Pause”, maintaining its stance that terror and talks cannot go hand in hand. India was more reserved and has remained mum on the role of the United States.
Pakistan welcomed the US involvement and expressed optimism about resolving broader issues such as Kashmir and water disputes through international cooperation.
On the one hand, the ceasefire represents a tangible de-escalation from the brink of war, halting immediate hostilities and opening the door for potential dialogue. It demonstrates the effectiveness of high-level US diplomatic engagement and backchannel communications in crisis management. On the other hand, the change remains limited. India’s cautious stance on broader negotiations and the absence of a concrete framework to address core disputes such as Kashmir and the Indus Water Treaty mean that the ceasefire is a critical first step, but not a comprehensive peace solution. The US acted primarily as a facilitator rather than a direct negotiator of terms, encouraging dialogue without imposing a settlement.
Any long-term transformation in India-Pakistan relations remains uncertain and dependent on sustained diplomatic efforts and mutual willingness to address underlying conflicts. The ceasefire is a pivotal development, but lasting peace will require continued engagement
Lasting peace between India and Pakistan ultimately depends on internal political will and mutual compromise. A major terrorist attack in India can trigger another military crisis, and hardliners in both countries can derail dialogue.
For now, the most pragmatic approach is to focus on incremental steps. The road to reconciliation is long and uncertain, but with sustained effort and pragmatic diplomacy, even the most entrenched conflicts can find pathways to peace.
Is War the last resort for any problem?
Historian and author Dr Akhtar Sindu believes:
The recent Pak-India military skirmishes damaged the traditional image of Indian might in the South Asian region and elevated the stature of Pakistan and its armies. Professionalism of the Pakistan Air Force and daring push of the Artillery and Infantry secured a high and prestigious morale in the eyes of the world’s military experts. India, posing to be a regional power, is trying to restore the myth, but all has been lost in the recent fights. Water and Kashmir issues have come to the fore as a result of the war; therefore, dialogue is imperative between Pakistan and India. To me, Pakistan should not have returned the occupied military posts in Kashmir to India however, it can be a starting point of the dialogue because force or a goodwill gesture can convince the rival to come to the table. But I believe that the occupation of the Indian posts could decline the Union status of the Occupied Kashmir, and this area could be presented as proof of our victory. The ravings of the BJP leadership seem a mere insane move because the damage has devastated their dream of standing in the line of the superpowers. They have no way to adopt defiance instead, they would continue dialogue under the noise of uproars and ravings. To avoid further escalation, the international community would facilitate the Pak-India negotiations while both countries are already willing to restore peace in the region because, being nuclear powers, both can’t afford a full-fledged war.
India is politicizing an issue pending in the UNSC
Ph.D. Scholar, author, and Foreign Affairs expert Shazia Anwer Cheema considers:
The ultra-nationalist and ultra-religious groups and opposition parties in India have always politicized a subject that is purely in the domain of international laws and the United Nations’ Security Council (UNSC), and always imposes certain constraints on Indian leaders that push the Indian government into a corner, forcing it to adopt an aggressive tone. This pattern has been in practice since the tenure of Manmohan Singh, when pressure from opposition parties undermined his efforts to engage with Pakistan. She believes that this is one of the reasons that no constructive bilateral engagement has ever been materialized in the past, and adverse political developments have overshadowed the bilateral agendas and caused disruptions that last months or even years. Since 2014, there has been no comprehensive bilateral dialogue in place, and the last dialogue was suspended by India. “It is unlikely that RSS-nurtured PM Modi is willing to return to the usual framework of engagement with Pakistan, and there is no guarantee that further violations of international borders by India will not provoke a strong reaction from Islamabad. She is of the view that India-Pakistan relations have always been polluted by India’s desire to hegemonize Pakistan, that always refused to accept India’s expansionist approach and dominance in the region. India detonated nuclear weapons in 1974 a saw itself as a regional superpower with authority to intervene in the affairs of South Asian nations but Pakistan from the very day of Smiling Buddha news rejected India’s dominance doctrine and it’s the then Prime Minister Zulifiqar Ali Bhutto said that “Pakistan would never accept intimidation and it believed in sovereign equality”.
“Since the Simla Accord, there is no mechanism exists to contain any crisis between the two nuclear countries, and confidence has left since the BJP government came into power, therefore, no bilateral dialogue can bring any result between the two nations now”, concluded Shazia Anwer Cheema.
It is pertinent to mention that on August 20, 2014, bilateral talks at the foreign secretary level between India and Pakistan were shelved when India objected that Kashmiris (from Illegally Indian Occupied Kashmir– Hurriyat Conference) were not allowed to suggest what they wished. While Pakistan has a stated position that the Kashmir issue must be resolved under the UNSC resolution that provides the right to Kashmiris for self-determination and their input in solving the Kashmir issue.
No normalization at sight
International acclaimed journalist and Editor of Express Tribune, Naveed Hussain, said:
I don’t see normalization between Pakistan and India happening as long as Narendra Modi is in power, primarily for two reasons. First, Modi’s politics is based on anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim rhetoric because he espouses the Hindu supremacist ideology of Hindutva. And this is what he sells to his electorate. Politically, he needs the “Pakistan bogey” to stay politically alive. In his 2016 speech, Modi had declared his foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan: I’ll make Pakistan a “pariah’ internationally – and we have seen that his administration has consistently pursued this policy since then.
Second, India, despite being a mid-level power, has inflated global ambitions and believes it enjoys the support of the Western world – the US in particular – which has been propping up as a counterweight to China for geostrategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific region. In their hubris, Modi and his coterie believe Pakistan is insignificant and not worthy of sitting across the table with them.
Having said that, US President Donald Trump can play a significant role in normalizing relations between the two countries, given the political, diplomatic, and trade leverage America has over India. President Trump has repeatedly spoken against war and in favor of trade between Pakistan and India since the two hostile neighbours have reached a ceasefire after recent hostilities. This, however, is possible only if the Trump administration stops using India for its geostrategic ambitions of containing China in the region. If he pulls off this miracle, he will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
No Backchannel Diplomacy has helped in the past
Author and political historian Agha Iqrar Haroon thinks:
Some of the notable track II and track III initiatives were rolled out starting from the Neemrana Dialogue in 1991, then stretching over Aman Ki Asha, Joint Exhibitions and Art Galleries, Lahore Literature Festival, Jaipur Literature Festival, Ajoka Theatre, and Tehreek-e-Niswan. Informal diplomacy was used as a mechanism of informal people-to-people interactions. However, its viability has proven to be short-lived and fragile.
Takeaways for readers:
- The Simla Agreement (1972) does not nullify UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, as the Simla Agreement did not erase Kashmir’s UN status, but India’s unilateral actions (Article 370) and recent military-diplomatic push have reignited the dispute. US mediation offers a temporary reprieve, but lasting peace hinges on addressing the Kashmir issue.
- Kashmir remains unresolved, fueling perpetual tensions.
- India’s military-diplomatic setbacks have reshaped South Asian dynamics.
- Peace requires political will, but Modi’s India shows none.
- Pakistan maintains that UN resolutions (e.g., plebiscite for self-determination) remain valid.
- India rejects third-party mediation, considering Kashmir an “internal matter” post-Article 370 abrogation.
- Pakistan continues to raise Kashmir at international forums (e.g., UNSC).
- Nuclearization has heightened risks—Modi’s India seeks military dominance but faces Pakistan’s deterrence.
- Past dialogues (Composite Dialogue, Track II) failed due to India’s inflexibility.
- Pakistan’s military success (Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos) challenged India’s conventional superiority.
- The US shifted stance, treating India-Pakistan as equals, surprising New Delhi.
- Kashmir revived globally as a flashpoint after recent Indo-Pak clashes.
- RSS ideology prevents resolving the Kashmir issue.
- Hardliners dominate policy, making dialogue unlikely under Modi.
- Military deterrence restored—Pakistan demonstrated capability in recent skirmishes.
- Diplomatic push urging the US/UN to enforce Kashmir resolutions.
- Indus Water Treaty & cross-border terrorism remain key friction points.
- No normalization expected under Modi—his politics thrives on Pakistan’s hostility.
- US mediation may help, but it faces Indian resistance.
- Incremental steps (ceasefire, water talks) are more realistic than full resolution for the time being.
- International pressure is needed to prevent escalation.
- UNSC must act before the crisis spirals.
