By Dr Majid Khan (Melbourne) & Uzair Ahmed Tahir (Islamabad)
The ceasefire between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor marked a significant de-escalation in a period of intense cross-border hostilities. While it delivered immediate tactical and humanitarian relief, especially along the Line of Control, its political aftermath has been far more complex; particularly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who now face a challenging balancing act between demonstrating strength and preserving diplomatic stability.
Operation Sindoor was launched in retaliation to a brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians. India attributed the attack to Pakistan-based militant groups, prompting a swift military response. Indian Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan later acknowledged the loss of Indian aircraft early in the operation but emphasized the subsequent tactical corrections that allowed for successful long-range precision strikes. His frank admission in an interview with Bloomberg reflected a degree of transparency, but it also exposed inconsistencies with earlier official communications that had underplayed such setbacks.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh praised the operational coordination across the services, particularly the Navy’s swift deployment and readiness. He underlined India’s resolve to respond decisively to any future provocations. However, the ceasefire announcement on May 10, coming on the heels of these aggressive operations, raised questions among both strategic commentators and domestic political audiences. The External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar clarified that the ceasefire was a result of direct military-to-military communication and not an outcome of external mediation. This statement was seen as a response to claims by President Donald Trump, who suggested that the United States had played a pivotal role in brokering the ceasefire by offering trade-related incentives to both India and Pakistan. Jaishankar dismissed such assertions, asserting that India’s decision-making remains sovereign and strategically autonomous.
Prime Minister Modi, in his address following the ceasefire, maintained a firm stance on national security. He reiterated that India had merely paused its operations and that any future terror attack would be met with an uncompromising response. Highlighting the use of indigenous BrahMos missiles during the operation, he emphasized the country’s growing self-reliance in defense production under the ‘Make in India’ initiative. Despite these assertions, opposition parties seized the opportunity to critique the government. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the Prime Minister of yielding to external pressure, notably from Washington. He suggested that Modi, despite his tough rhetoric, halted military action upon receiving signals from Trump. This critique aimed at exposing a perceived gap between Modi’s nationalist messaging and the pragmatism reflected in the ceasefire.
Criticism was not limited to the opposition. Within the BJP’s core support base, particularly among hardline nationalist voters and RSS-affiliated groups, concerns were voiced about the government’s decision to halt hostilities. For many of these constituents, the expectation was for continued escalation until Pakistan faced severe and enduring consequences. The ceasefire, while temporarily halting cross-border fire and offering strategic breathing space, was perceived by some as an incomplete mission.
The political cost of the ceasefire also intersects with the broader narrative of the BJP’s national security credentials. Since 2014, the Modi government has leveraged a strong, uncompromising stance on terrorism and Pakistan as a central component of its political identity. The Balakot airstrikes following the Pulwama attack in 2019 had significantly bolstered the BJP’s image as the party of decisive action. However, the current ceasefire has complicated this narrative. While military operations demonstrated India’s capabilities, the abrupt halt, without extracting overt concessions from Pakistan on terror infrastructure; has left room for critics to argue that strategic advantage was not fully exploited.
Rajnath Singh sought to allay these concerns by stating unequivocally that India would not tolerate cross-border terrorism and that any future dialogue with Pakistan would be limited to terrorism and the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Similarly, S. Jaishankar framed the ceasefire not as a concession but as a test of Pakistan’s intentions. He emphasized that India’s engagement policy is governed by zero tolerance for terror and is contingent upon sincerity from the other side. These statements were intended to reassure the domestic audience that national security had not been compromised and that the government remained vigilant.
Despite these clarifications, the Modi government finds itself in a politically sensitive position. The ceasefire has provided immediate tactical relief and strengthened India’s regional diplomatic posture, particularly with major global powers wary of escalation between two nuclear states. However, it has also invited skepticism from both political rivals and sections of the public who view the BJP’s move as a softening of its stance. In a politically charged environment, especially with general elections approaching in 2024, this perception matters. Anti-Pakistan rhetoric has electoral resonance in key states like Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. Any perceived inconsistency or ambiguity in the government’s Pakistan policy could alienate parts of the BJP’s traditional voter base.
Furthermore, the government’s initial lack of transparency regarding the operational costs of Operation Sindoor, especially the aircraft losses; has added to the skepticism. The subsequent admission by CDS General Chauhan only intensified demands for greater openness. In an era of digital scrutiny and real-time information, managing narrative control is increasingly critical to maintaining political capital.
The ceasefire, therefore, represents a calculated risk for Prime Minister Modi and the BJP. On one hand, it offers strategic pause, allowing India to recalibrate its counter-terrorism operations and reinforce internal security measures. On the other, it demands deft political management to maintain the perception of strength and resolve that underpins the BJP’s national security platform. The leadership’s challenge lies in sustaining the ceasefire without appearing conciliatory, and in ensuring that any future aggression from Pakistan is met with a swift, visible, and proportionate response.
Ultimately, the long-term implications of the ceasefire will depend on its sustainability and Pakistan’s conduct in the months ahead. If Pakistan adheres to the truce and curbs its support for terrorism, the BJP can claim a strategic win achieved without full-scale war. However, if hostilities resume or another major terror incident occurs, the political backlash could be severe, especially if the government is seen as having prematurely de-escalated.
For now, Prime Minister Modi and his party are walking a tightrope, balancing the imperatives of peace with the expectations of a domestic constituency that demands uncompromising national security. Whether the ceasefire proves to be a diplomatic masterstroke or a political liability will hinge on both regional developments and the government’s ability to shape and manage public perception.
