On May 10th, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire. But in a move almost as predictable as the sunrise, Pakistan launched a drone attack on India just two hours later but India’s air defense systems obliterated the drones before they could do any damage. While many are applauding the ceasefire as a diplomatic victory, there’s a growing chorus questioning whether India, once again, sacrificed a strategic advantage for the sake of international peace. Let’s take a closer look at the players involved—and why, for at least three of them, this is a win-win.

India’s Calculated Restraint: Strategic Masterstroke

India’s approach has been crystal clear: neutralize Pakistan’s terror infrastructure. If Pakistan’s military steps in, they’ll feel the full wrath of India’s military might. Yet, India has never officially declared war—because it simply doesn’t need to. Why risk a full-blown war when you can hit Pakistan where it hurts in the long run? India’s playbook includes tearing up the Indus Water Treaty, choking off international funds to Pakistan, and ramping up global awareness of the Balochistan issue.

The real prize here? India has flexed its military muscle. It’s tested its air defense systems and made it clear: Pakistan is vulnerable whenever India chooses to strike. Yes, India could have easily shattered Pakistan’s defenses, perhaps even broken the nation into pieces. But that would have drawn global ire—particularly from the powers whose economic interests are tied to India’s rapid growth. With the U.S. imposing tariffs on China, India’s position as a key player in the global supply chain is too valuable to risk. And let’s face it: an extended conflict would have derailed India’s booming economy. By opting for a ceasefire, India secures its economic future while still maintaining its military superiority & punishing terrorist across the border.

China: The Big Loser in This Ceasefire Deal

Now, if there’s anyone truly fuming over this ceasefire, it’s China. Beijing had been salivating at the prospect of a full-scale India-Pakistan war. Why? Because China could have capitalized on the situation by sending arms and ammunition to Pakistan, making a tidy profit while furthering its “debt trap” strategy. Plus, a prolonged war would have weakened India militarily, and China could have seized the perfect moment to attack Arunachal Pradesh without firing a single shot. China, despite its military might, knows that war is a gamble—not a game for machines, but for the people who fight. The longer the conflict, the more it stands to benefit, both economically and strategically.

But with the ceasefire, China has lost its chance. India’s brief conflict exposed the vulnerabilities in China’s defense systems, and the Chinese military-industrial complex is now on notice. If the war had escalated, China’s weapons would have been exposed as ineffective, leading to a major blow to its arms industry.

USA: The Reluctant Puppeteer of Pakistan

The United States finds itself in a geopolitical bind over India and Pakistan. For decades, Washington threw its weight behind Pakistan, providing financial & military aid, only to watch Pakistan choose the path of terrorism, culminating in the discovery of Osama bin Laden nestled in a Pakistani military stronghold. Despite this betrayal, the U.S. has no choice but to rely on India to counter China’s growing influence in the region.

Here’s the catch: India doesn’t play by the U.S.’s rules. India has made it abundantly clear that it will pursue policies based on its national interests, regardless of what the U.S. or Europe may want. While the U.S. might use Pakistan as a pawn in its own strategic game against China, the reality is that Pakistan serves the U.S. more than the other way around. The U.S. once used Pakistan to destabilize the USSR, and now China funds Pakistan to keep India on edge. But let’s be clear: terrorism has no friends. In time, the same terrorist groups used as pawns will turn on their benefactors, as history has shown.

For the U.S., supporting Pakistan is part of a bigger game—maintaining strategic footholds in Indian subcontinent. A prolonged war would have forced Trump to take back imposed tariffs on China. But this gamble of supporting Pakistan is fraught with danger, especially when Pakistan continues to shelter terrorist organizations.

Pakistan: The Military Dictatorship’s hiding faces

For Pakistan’s military establishment (Terrorist in uniforms), this ceasefire is nothing short of a lifeline. The country is teetering on the edge of a civil war, with mounting anger over its failure to stop Indian missiles and drones. At a time when Pakistan’s defense systems are under intense scrutiny, the ceasefire offers a temporary escape. But the question remains: why the drone attack just hours after the ceasefire?

To understand this, one must look at who’s really in charge of Pakistan. The military, once the dominant force in the country, is now heavily infiltrated by terrorist elements. The lines between Pakistan’s military and terrorist groups are increasingly blurred. The current army chief, Asim Munir, is deeply implicated in some of the most horrific acts of terrorism, including the Pahalgam attack. By speaking to Asif Munir, The U.S. itself has acknowledged that Pakistan is now ruled by a military dictatorship, not a legitimate government.

In this context, the drone attack can be seen as a power play from Pakistan’s military leadership, which continues to operate in the shadow of terrorism. The ceasefire may have saved face temporarily, but Pakistan’s internal instability and the growing influence of terrorist factions make it clear that this peace is fragile at best.

Importantly for Pakistan, the future is not easy because it will find difficult to choose between USA and China. Right now, Pakistan is the puppet of China but USA through IMF loan has taken a chance to bring back its puppet to its original home.

India’s decision to agree to the ceasefire was a masterstroke in strategic thinking. By doing so, India not only safeguarded its economic interests but also set the stage for a major shift in its policy toward terrorism. India’s new doctrine—viewing any terror attack as an act of war—has sent shockwaves through the Pakistani military establishment. This shift in policy, coupled with the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, ensures that Pakistan will remain under intense pressure for the foreseeable future.

India is no longer content with merely retaliating to terror attacks. It is now actively rewriting the rules of engagement. The Pakistani military may have survived this round, but the clock is ticking on its ability to maintain control. India’s assertive stance is a reminder to Pakistan that any further aggression will come at a steep price.

The ceasefire between India and Pakistan is not just a diplomatic stopgap—it’s a calculated move, a strategic pause in a high-stakes geopolitical chess game. India has taken a strategic pause, consolidating its position while preserving its economic and military interests. China, the U.S., and Pakistan all have their own agendas, but for India, the long-term game is one of national security, global influence, and economic dominance. The ceasefire may have temporarily defused tensions, but the underlying strategic dynamics remain unchanged. The future of this conflict will be shaped not by fleeting moments of peace, but by India’s long-term vision and its unrelenting drive to secure its place on the world stage.