By Dr. Majid Khan/ Uzair Ahmad Tahir
After four days of intense hostilities involving drone volleys, missile strikes, and unprecedented aerial engagements, India and Pakistan agreed on May 10, 2025, to a full and immediate ceasefire. The truce was announced after a flurry of high-level communications and direct military-to-military contact between the two sides. However, the ceasefire is already under stress, as explosions were reported in Srinagar, Peshawar, and Karachi just hours after the agreement went into effect.
Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri confirmed that Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations contacted his Indian counterpart at 15:35 IST, with both sides agreeing to cease all firing and military actions by 17:00 IST. The DGMOs are expected to reconvene on May 12 to assess compliance.
U.S. President Donald Trump was quick to take credit for brokering the agreement, announcing, “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,” and praised both countries for “using common sense and great intelligence.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio added that both sides had also agreed to open talks on a wider range of issues at a neutral site, attributing the progress to intense diplomatic efforts led by himself and Vice President JD Vance.
Yet India disputed the characterization of the agreement as externally brokered. The Ministry of Information stated, “The agreement was worked out directly between the two countries,” denying any imminent plans for formal dialogue and downplaying Washington’s role.
Meanwhile, according to CNN’s Nick Robertson, Pakistan reportedly launched a massive missile barrage targeting Indian military installations, prompting India to seek diplomatic assistance from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
The ceasefire follows the most severe and destructive military escalation between the two nuclear-armed rivals since the 1999 Kargil conflict. The hostilities were ignited after a terrorist attack on April 22 in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, left 28 Hindu tourists dead. India immediately blamed the attack on the Pakistan-based group Lashkar-e-Taiba, triggering a rapid military response that culminated in the launch of “Operation Sindoor.” Indian forces targeted militant infrastructure at nine locations deep inside Pakistan, including Bahawalpur and Muridke, both long suspected of housing militant assets.
In retaliation, Pakistan launched a fierce and calculated counteroffensive, codenamed “Operation Bunyan al-Marsus.” Pakistani forces fired volleys of ballistic and cruise missiles at multiple Indian military installations, airfields, and ammunition depots. Among the sites hit were the Pathankot and Udhampur airbases, as well as sensitive facilities in Gujarat, Punjab, and Rajasthan.
Simultaneously, Pakistan deployed its Chinese-supplied J-10C fighter aircraft, armed with PL-15 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles, to conduct deep airspace engagements. These platforms reportedly delivered a crippling blow to the Indian Air Force (IAF), downing five of its aircraft—three Rafale fighters, one Su-30MKI, and one MiG-29.
While India did conduct precision strikes on at least 11 Pakistani military sites, including major airbases such as Nur Khan, Sargodha, Skardu, Rafiqui, and Murid, Pakistani air defenses were reportedly well-prepared and operational. Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence claimed that its forces intercepted or neutralized most of the incoming threats with minimal damage to their strategic assets. Meanwhile, the impact of Pakistan’s strikes on Indian installations was widely observed and captured on open-source platforms, which showed significant destruction of infrastructure.
Pakistan’s military success in downing five Indian jets—particularly the French-built Rafales, which represent the cutting edge of India’s air combat capability—has shocked defense analysts worldwide.
A French intelligence source confirmed to CNN that at least one Rafale was shot down, the first such loss in combat globally. A respected French defense analysis group described the footage documenting the shootdown as “credible.” The blow to India’s air superiority narrative has been severe.
Strategic analyst and former Indian Army officer Sushant Singh said, “If aircraft have been lost, it’s certainly a setback. If Rafales have been lost, it’s an even bigger setback and naturally tarnishes the image of the Indian operation. Losing aircraft while trying to conduct a clearly planned, rehearsed and prepared operation is inevitably painful and embarrassing.”
Despite officially confirming the loss of only three aircraft, the Indian government has remained evasive on the full extent of damage suffered. Reports emerged that Indian media outlets were pressured to retract or remove stories relating to aircraft losses and damage to key installations. This, coupled with India’s diplomatic outreach to the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey during the conflict, underlines the severe pressure faced by New Delhi during the confrontation.
Pakistan’s combat performance, especially the effective deployment of Chinese military platforms, marks a strategic turning point. The J-10C aircraft and PL-15 missile system proved to be a deadly combination. This is the first recorded use of the PL-15 missile in a combat scenario, and it performed with lethal precision, reportedly striking Indian fighters from well beyond visual range.
Hu Jixin, former editor of the Chinese state-affiliated Global Times, remarked, “China’s level of military manufacturing has completely surpassed that of Russia and France,” adding that “Taiwan should feel even more scared.” The Chengdu Aircraft Corporation, the Chinese manufacturer of the J-10C, saw its stock price surged following the reports of the successful Pakistani air operations.
Pakistan’s ability to not only repel Indian aggression but also inflict strategic and psychological damage on the Indian Air Force has been widely interpreted as a decisive military success. It demonstrated superior preparedness, coordination, and real-time use of high-end defense technology.
More importantly, it showed that Pakistan could challenge India’s much-hyped air dominance, despite being numerically and economically inferior. This has positioned Pakistan as a resurgent power in South Asia’s military balance—at least in terms of asymmetric capability and tactical agility.
The contrast in the responses from the two countries further underscores the shifting momentum. While Pakistan projected a posture of strength and control, India appeared reactive and constrained. The fact that India reached out to external powers for diplomatic intervention suggests a crisis of control in the face of unexpected resistance and battlefield reversals. The Indian government’s downplaying of losses and the media blackout only add to the perception that the conflict did not proceed according to its intended trajectory.
At the strategic level, the war has redefined perceptions about regional military dynamics. For decades, Western defense planners considered Chinese-made equipment inferior to Russian or NATO platforms. That assumption is now being reassessed.
Pakistan’s effective employment of Chinese systems has demonstrated their viability in real-time combat, sparking serious concern in Western defense circles. Analysts are beginning to argue that Western countries—and particularly India’s strategic partners like France and the United States—must reassess the technological edge they assumed they held in regional conflicts.
Though the ceasefire has halted immediate fighting, the underlying tensions remain volatile. Pakistan claims it has destroyed yet another Indian drone post-ceasefire, and its defense minister warned of further Indian military strikes. Indian authorities have not confirmed additional plans for retaliation, but the historical precedent from the 2019 Balakot strike and subsequent capture of an Indian pilot by Pakistan looms large.
There is growing consensus among analysts that while India may have sought to limit the confrontation, the scale of Pakistan’s response caught New Delhi off guard. Editorial opinion has stressed that unless India establishes irrefutable evidence of Pakistani military complicity in the Pahalgam attack, any broader retaliatory strikes would risk triggering a cycle of escalation that might be difficult to control.
With the ceasefire now in place, the immediate threat of war may have receded, but the region remains on a knife’s edge. The balance of power has subtly but significantly shifted.
The conflict has elevated Pakistan’s military prestige, showcased Chinese technology in real-world combat effectiveness, and cast doubt on India’s preparedness for high-intensity, short-duration warfare. This short but intense war has left a lasting impression not just on South Asia but on the global strategic community. Pakistan, against most expectations, has emerged from this confrontation not as a beleaguered defender, but as a militarily triumphant actor on the regional stage.
