A new doctrine and a new norm on terrorism

Things are crystal clear between India and Pakistan following the suspension of Operation Sindoor on May 10, 2025. Most importantly, there is no change in India’s policy on Jammu and Kashmir. The differences between the two countries will be resolved through bilateral negotiations without any mediation. These differences have been defined as terrorism and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir—the only issues open to negotiations. The trade ban will continue.

The outcome of the four-day war, according to India, is a new doctrine on terrorism, which will consider any Pakistani terrorist attack an act of war and deal with it accordingly. There is no ceasefire agreement in force between the two countries, and Operation Sindoor is only paused—it will be reactivated if hostilities resume.

Military experts around the world have concluded that India had the upper hand by the third day, though it was surprised by the ferocity of the counterattack on the second day. But India had declared from the start that the operation was only to wipe the sindoor off the brows of the wives of terrorists who had widowed several Indian women. Once they were avenged, India had no further reason to continue the conflict. India had no desire to seize territory or destroy Pakistan’s economy. So, when Pakistan offered a ceasefire, India quickly accepted it, having met its original objective. As for Pakistan’s rhetoric on nuclear weapons, it was treated as an empty threat.

The only unclear part of the whole scenario is whether President Donald Trump and his colleagues burnt the midnight oil to bring India and Pakistan together to avert a nuclear conflagration. India dismissed the US claim as false and attributed the cessation of hostilities to a successful mission. What impact this will have on the avowed “friendship” between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi does not seem to worry either side. Trump went on a planned visit to the Middle East to pick up the gift of an Air Force One from Qatar and an order for a few billion dollars’ worth of armaments from Saudi Arabia. Whether he tried to convince Prime Minister Modi of his efforts to get Pakistan and India to stop the war is not known. If the guns fall silent, bloodshed is stopped, and nuclear weapons are put away in their silos, it does not matter who was responsible for the good deed. Having failed to stop any other war, stopping this little war must have gladdened Trump’s heart—and as a friend, Prime Minister Modi should not deny him that joy. India claims that Trump did not raise any trade issues, but he said—if it was not an AI-generated statement—that he would increase trade with India and Pakistan if the war stopped; otherwise, there would be no trade with either of them.

In the spirit of keeping Kashmir away from third parties, India sought no support from any of them, except to keep them informed of the terrorist threat to the whole world. But China and Turkiye went out of their way to support Pakistan, both having a stake in the conflict because of the involvement of their aircraft and ships on Pakistan’s side. Turkiye, even under its old name, had been an ally of Pakistan, and China has been Pakistan’s all-weather friend.

In sum, whether Indians or Pakistanis can now sleep in peace while Sindoor remains suspended is a matter of conjecture. But India has avenged the terrorists of Pahalgam and created a new normal and a new doctrine, and Pakistan has brought Jammu and Kashmir to the forefront of global issues, along with the looming nuclear danger. History alone will judge whether the four days of death, destruction, and mayhem have contributed to regional or global peace.