Shadows of Command: Probing Pakistan’s Ceasefire Initiative and the Night of Fractured Peace

By IndraStra Global Editorial Team

Cover Image Attribute: The India Today screengrab of India-Pakistan ceasefire announcement by US President Donald J. Trump. / Date: May 10, 2025.

On May 10, 2025, a fragile ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan, nuclear-armed neighbors with a history of volatile relations, was announced, bringing a momentary pause to four days of intense cross-border hostilities centered in the disputed region of Kashmir. The decision to initiate this truce, as confirmed by India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, originated from Pakistan, with its Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) reaching out to his Indian counterpart at 15:35 IST, culminating in an agreement effective from 17:00 IST. This move, followed by reported contacts between Pakistan’s National Security Advisor and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Asim Malik and India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, appeared to signal a rare moment of de-escalation in a conflict sparked by a deadly April 22 attack on Hindu tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, which India attributed to Pakistan-based militants. Yet, within hours, explosions, drone sightings, and cross-border shelling in multiple areas of Indian-administered Kashmir—Srinagar, Jammu, Akhnoor, Rajouri, and RS Pura—cast doubt on the ceasefire’s durability. These violations, reported by Indian officials and local witnesses, including Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, who publicly questioned the truce’s integrity, raise critical questions about the coherence of Pakistan’s military chain of command and the extent to which its directives were followed. This opinion piece seeks to probe the motivations behind Pakistan’s ceasefire initiative, the subsequent breaches, and the deeper implications of command dynamics, while maintaining a balanced perspective that avoids nationalistic bias and critically examines the complexities of this pivotal moment.

Pakistan’s decision to propose a ceasefire must be understood in the context of escalating military and diplomatic pressures. The April 22 attack, which killed 26 civilians, prompted India to launch Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting what it described as “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and mainland Pakistan. Despite denying involvement in the initial attack, Pakistan retaliated with drone and missile strikes, including an operation dubbed Bunyan Ul Marsoos, targeting Indian military sites. By May 10, the tit-for-tat exchanges had resulted in significant civilian and military casualties—estimates suggest at least 48 deaths across both sides—disrupting life along the Line of Control (LoC) and raising global alarms about the risk of a broader conflict. Pakistan’s initiative, as articulated by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in a televised address, was framed as a commitment to regional peace, with gratitude extended to mediators such as the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom. U.S. President Donald Trump, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, claimed a significant role in brokering the truce, though India insisted the agreement was a bilateral arrangement. This diplomatic backdrop suggests that Pakistan’s move was partly a response to the escalatory Indian strikes, which devastated key airbases. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) and Indian claims indicated that Pakistan’s air force suffered catastrophic losses, including the destruction of critical radar systems and aircraft at Nur Yar Khan, Sargodha, Murid, Bholari, Rahim Yar Khan, Jacobabad, and other facilities. The ceasefire proposal may also have been motivated by a desire to avoid further international embarrassment and to respond to mounting pressure from Washington, which likely leveraged its influence to avert a nuclear-tinged escalation. Domestically, Pakistan faced economic strain and political instability, with Sharif’s government navigating tensions with the powerful military establishment led by General Syed Asim Munir. Proposing a ceasefire could have been a strategic maneuver to project statesmanship, stabilize the economy by reopening airspace, and avoid further military losses against India’s superior conventional forces.

However, the ceasefire’s fragility was exposed almost immediately. Reports of violations emerged within hours, with Indian officials, including Misri, accusing Pakistan of breaching the agreement through artillery shelling and drone incursions in multiple sectors of Jammu and Kashmir. Residents and Reuters witnesses reported blasts, projectiles, and air defense activity in Srinagar and Jammu, while drones were spotted as far afield as Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. Omar Abdullah’s social media posts, decrying the “explosions heard across Srinagar” and questioning the ceasefire’s validity, amplified local skepticism. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry, in contrast, denied initiating violations, accusing Indian forces of provocation and emphasizing its commitment to the truce. This discrepancy highlights a critical issue: the apparent disconnect between Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership and the forces on the ground. The Pakistani military, under General Munir, wields significant autonomy, often overshadowing civilian governance. Sharif’s address, which celebrated the ceasefire but avoided directly addressing the alleged violations, contrasts sharply with the military’s actions, as reported by Indian sources and corroborated by local accounts of shelling and drone activity. This raises the possibility that the ceasefire directive, issued at the DGMO level, either failed to permeate the lower echelons of the military or was deliberately undermined by elements within the chain of command.
The coherence of Pakistan’s military chain of command is a pivotal factor in understanding these breaches. Pakistan’s military structure, rooted in a history of coups and political dominance, operates with a degree of independence that complicates civilian oversight. General Munir, described as consolidating power akin to past military strongmen like Zia-ul-Haq, has been accused of shaping policy behind the scenes. The swift violation of the ceasefire—occurring mere hours after Sharif’s endorsement—suggests either a failure of communication or intentional defiance. One hypothesis is that field commanders, particularly along the LoC, may have acted independently, driven by local tactical imperatives or retaliation for perceived Indian provocations. The LoC, a volatile de facto border, is prone to such skirmishes, with ceasefire violations often attributed to miscalculations or unauthorized actions by junior officers. Alternatively, the violations could reflect a deliberate strategy by segments of the military to signal defiance, either to India or to domestic audiences skeptical of the ceasefire’s terms. India’s claim that it “crippled” Pakistani capabilities during Operation Sindoor may have pressured Munir to demonstrate resilience, even at the cost of undermining the truce. The involvement of drones, a relatively new and decentralized tool of warfare, further complicates accountability, as their deployment may involve non-state actors or rogue units operating outside formal command structures.
This lack of coherence is not unique to Pakistan. India, too, faced accusations from Pakistan of violating the ceasefire, with Islamabad claiming Indian forces initiated hostilities in some areas. While India’s military operates under stronger civilian control, the fog of war and the LoC’s inherent volatility could explain mutual violations. Both sides’ air defense systems were active, suggesting a cycle of provocation and response rather than a one-sided breach. However, Pakistan’s internal dynamics—particularly the civil-military divide—amplify the risk of such fractures. Sharif’s government tyself may reflect a calculated decision to prioritize domestic optics over strict adherence to the truce, banking on the international community’s reluctance to escalate further. The role of external mediators, particularly the U.S., adds another layer of complexity. Trump’s high-profile announcement of the ceasefire, while galvanizing global support, may have pressured Pakistan into a public commitment it was not fully prepared to enforce, especially if Munir’s military priorities diverged from Sharif’s diplomatic posturing.
The violations themselves, while limited in scope—no immediate casualties were reported—underscore the precariousness of ceasefire agreements in high-stakes conflicts. The use of drones, reported in multiple Indian states, points to the evolving nature of warfare, where technology enables rapid, deniable strikes that blur the line between state and non-state action. For Pakistan, the drone incursions could serve as a low-cost way to test India’s resolve without triggering full-scale retaliation, though they risk undermining the ceasefire’s credibility. India’s response, described as “befitting” and “strong” by Misri, reflects a determination to deter further breaches, but it also perpetuates the cycle of escalation. The agreement for the DGMOs to reconvene on May 12 suggests an attempt to salvage the truce, but without addressing the underlying issues—Kashmir’s disputed status, mutual distrust, and internal command dynamics—such agreements remain brittle.
The broader implications of this episode extend beyond the immediate violations. For Pakistan, the ceasefire initiative and its subsequent fractures highlight the challenge of aligning civilian and military objectives in a state where the army’s influence is paramount. The military’s actions, whether deliberate or uncoordinated, suggest a reluctance to fully cede the initiative to India, which claimed tactical successes in the preceding days. This tension mirrors historical precedents, such as the 1999 Kargil War, where Pakistan’s military pursued aggressive operations without full civilian backing, leading to strategic setbacks. For India, the violations reinforce skepticism about Pakistan’s reliability as a negotiating partner, potentially hardening its stance on issues like the Indus Waters Treaty, which remains suspended. Globally, the ceasefire’s fragility underscores the limits of external mediation in resolving deeply entrenched conflicts, particularly when domestic political and military dynamics are misaligned.
Ultimately, the events of May 10, 2025, reveal the delicate balance required to sustain a ceasefire in a region defined by mistrust and competing narratives. Pakistan’s decision to initiate the truce was a pragmatic response to military and diplomatic pressures, but its inability to prevent immediate violations exposes vulnerabilities in its command structure and civil-military relations. While the breaches were limited, their symbolic weight—amplified by public outcries from figures like Omar Abdullah—threatens to erode confidence in future agreements. The absence of clear accountability, whether due to rogue elements, tactical miscalculations, or deliberate posturing, underscores the need for both nations to strengthen internal coordination and engage in sustained dialogue. Without such measures, the ceasefire, like those before it, risks becoming a fleeting pause in a conflict that continues to claim lives and destabilize the region. The shadows of command, cast by Pakistan’s fractured decision-making, remind us that peace is not merely a matter of agreements but of the will and capacity to enforce them.

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html