menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Decisions, Hotlines and Mediators: The US-Led Diplomacy That Led to the India-Pakistan Ceasefire

19 9
sunday

Listen to this article:

New Delhi: After a tense four-day military standoff between India and Pakistan with drone and missile strikes, US President Donald Trump announced today (May 10) that the two countries had agreed to a “full and immediate ceasefire.”

His announcement – echoed soon after by officials in New Delhi and Islamabad – generated relief in most but also consternation in some quarters here. But as night fell in the subcontinent, explosions heard across the Kashmir valley highlighted the precarity of this US-mediated peace effort.

It was around 7.55 am eastern time in the United States that Trump posted on Truth Social that “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE”. He congratulated both countries on using “Common Sense and Great Intelligence”.

Islamabad was quick to confirm the ceasefire, with Pakistan’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister M. Ishaq Dar posting on X that the neighbours had “agreed to a ceasefire with immediate effect”. 

In New Delhi, foreign secretary Vikram Misri, who had been helming the media briefings for ‘Operation Sindoor’, read out a short statement without taking any questions. He confirmed that there would be a cessation of military operations from 5 pm.

The Director General of Military Operations of Pakistan called the Director General of Military Operations of India at 1535 hours IST earlier today.

It was agreed between them that both sides would stop all firing and military action on land and in the air and sea with effect from 1700 hours Indian Standard Time today.

Instructions have been given on both sides to give effect to the understanding.

The Director Generals of Military Operations will talk again on the 12th of May at 1200 hours.

Later, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar posted that the two countries had “worked out an understanding on stoppage of firing and military action.” He reiterated that “India has consistently maintained a firm and uncompromising stance against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It will continue to do so.”

Notably, neither Jaishankar’s statement nor India’s earlier announcement by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri acknowledged any US role in brokering the ceasefire. Washington, however, described it plainly as a “US-brokered ceasefire” in a State Department release.

While there is no doubt that the technical mechanics of the ceasefire were indeed worked out by the two DGMOs without external mediation, the fact that they spoke and entered into negotiations was clearly the product of a larger diplomatic and political process pushed by Washington – a process in which the leaders of India and Pakistan agreed to set aside the wider military goals they had from the continuing conflict and settle for a truce.

US National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Marco Rubio took to X to say that he, along with Vice President JD Vance, had engaged with the full spectrum of Indian and Pakistani leadership, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Great work from the President’s team, especially Secretary Rubio.

And my gratitude to the leaders of India and Pakistan for their hard work and willingness to engage in this ceasefire. https://t.co/ddDzFMAT3H

— JD Vance (@JDVance) May 10, 2025


Rather significantly, Rubio not only announced an “immediate ceasefire’, but also said that both governments had agreed “to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site”. The announcement aligned with language used in the State Department spokesperson’s readouts of calls of Rubio with Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers earlier in the day where he “offered US assistance in starting constructive talks in order to avoid future conflicts”.

However, Indian government sources quickly pushed back, telling reporters there was “no decision to hold talks on any other issue at any other place.” Any suggestion of talks would mark a significant shift........

© The Wire