Ceasefire after the upper hand: A strategic move, not a retreat

Time of India

10-05-2025

Rajesh Kalra is a journalist for almost three decades and has also tried his hands at entrepreneurship in between. Although he has written on several subjects, he has a weakness for IT, telecommunications, sports and developmental issues. He is an avid sportsman, a trained high-altitude mountaineer, a passionate mountain biker and a marathoner. He is on the PM's Olympic Task Force and a member of the All India Council of Sports. His blog, Random Access, will cover issues that take into account these varied interests. Follow @rajeshkalra on Twitter LESS ... MORE
There's a palpable sense of disappointment among many Indians today, especially within strategic and nationalist circles, over India agreeing to a ceasefire with Pakistan. The prevailing sentiment is that India had the upper hand — Pakistan's air defences were effectively neutralised at key locations, major airbases suffered significant damage, and every Pakistani aerial, drone, and missile assault was successfully intercepted or neutralised. Their only 'success' was limited to indiscriminate cross-border shelling that tragically claimed innocent civilian lives.
So the question being asked is — why agree to a ceasefire now? Why not press forward, or even reclaim POK?
But here's what most people are missing: Pakistan is a failed state.
It has nothing to lose. Its leaders have already looted the country and stashed their wealth abroad. Any escalation would only hurt India — the fastest-growing large global economy, a rising geopolitical force, and a nation with far more at stake in global stability, trade, and perception.
It is important to know what really happened behind the scenes?
A call from Pakistan's DGMO formally requested a ceasefire after India's strikes on their airbases.
The United States played its part — IMF loans were being withheld until Pakistan agreed to compliance terms, creating immense financial pressure.
India has kept the Indus Waters Treaty suspension in place. No data will be shared, and long-pending water projects on the three northern rivers will proceed without Pakistani input.
No data will be shared, and long-pending water projects on the three northern rivers will proceed without Pakistani input. Perhaps most significantly, the US seems to have accepted India's change in its war doctrine — future terror attacks will now be treated as acts of war.
And yet, the even bigger threat lies elsewhere.
Beijing is watching closely — and may well be the invisible hand behind recent events. Its strategic interest in destabilising India is neither new nor subtle:
China sees India as a long-term geopolitical rival.
Apple's decision to manufacture all iPhones sold in the US in India from 2026 is a direct blow to China's tech dominance.
A coordinated terror attack like the massacre in Pahalgam, followed by Pakistani provocations, conveniently serves China's interests. It portrays India as an unsafe investment destination.
China treats Pakistan almost like a vassal state, and could very well be using it to test military technology in live conflict conditions.
In that context, the ceasefire isn't weakness. It's strategy.
It's about delivering a calibrated blow without derailing India's growth trajectory. It's about choosing the battlefield — not being dragged into one engineered by others.
This is not the end of the story. It's a statement.
India has changed the rules of engagement — militarily, diplomatically, and economically.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.