India, Pakistan mark ceasefire anniversary

India and Pakistan are not back at war. But they are not moving toward peace either. That is the real story one year after the ceasefire of May 10, 2025 — the truce still holds, yet both governments used the anniversary to sharpen their public lines instead of softening them. Pakistan’s military warned it would answer any new attack with greater force, while Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India remained determined to crush terrorism and the networks that support it. ### What happened a year ago? The immediate backdrop was the April 22, 2025 attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 men, most of them Hindu tourists. India blamed Pakistan-backed militants. Pakistan denied involvement. India then launched strikes on May 7, 2025 on what it called terrorist camps in Pakistan, and the crisis quickly turned into four days of airstrikes, drones, missiles, artillery fire, and claims of retaliation on both sides before a ceasefire was announced on May 10. (abcnews.com) ### Why does the anniversary feel tense? Because both sides are treating the ceasefire less like a peace process and more like a pause with deterrence attached. Pakistan’s military said this week that any “hostile design” would be met with “greater strength, precision and resolve.” India, for its part, used the anniversary to restate that its counterterror posture has not changed. So the language is about readiness, not reconciliation. (channelnewsasia.com) ### What is Pakistan saying now? Pakistan’s public message has two tracks. One is military — Field Marshal Asim Munir cast last year’s clash as more than a border fight, calling it a battle of ideologies and warning India against any future misadventure. The other is diplomatic — Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, said India mistook Islamabad’s desire for peace as weakness. That pairing tells you a lot: Pakistan wants to sound restrained and defiant at the same time. (arabnews.com) ### What is India saying now? India’s line is narrower and more familiar — terrorism remains the core issue. Modi said India was still “steadfast as ever” in defeating terrorism and its “enabling ecosystem.” That phrase matters because it signals India is not separating militant attacks from the state environment it believes allows them. In other words, New Delhi is still framing the 2025 crisis as a counterterror response, not as a dispute that can be reset by anniversary messaging. (pakobserver.net) ### So is the ceasefire actually stable? Stable is too generous. Intact is better. The ceasefire ended the immediate fighting, but even in 2025 there were almost immediate accusations of violations after the deal was announced. Since then, the bigger achievement has been avoiding another spiral, not building trust. Think of it less as a repaired bridge and more as a barricade that both sides have decided not to kick over — for now. (msn.com) ### What has the conflict changed beyond the border? The costs have spread outward. Air India has deferred annual salary hikes by at least one quarter, citing rising fuel prices, economic uncertainty, and disruption tied partly to Pakistan airspace closures. That is a small but concrete reminder that even short military crises can leave long commercial shadows, especially in aviation, where routes, fuel burn, and insurance risk all move fast. (pbs.org) ### Why does this still matter internationally? Because these are nuclear-armed neighbors with a long record of crises that start in Kashmir and then outrun everyone’s assumptions. The 2025 ceasefire was publicly announced by the U.S. and followed direct military contact between the two sides. A year later, the basic danger has not disappeared — the trigger could still be a militant attack, a retaliatory strike, or a misread signal wrapped in patriotic rhetoric. (telegraphindia.com) ### Bottom line The anniversary did not bring a diplomatic opening. It brought a reminder. The shooting stopped on May 10, 2025, but the arguments that produced it are still fully alive — and both capitals seem more interested in proving resolve than testing compromise. (msn.com) (state.gov)