In a major breakthrough following weeks of deadly escalation, India and Pakistan have agreed to a ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border. The agreement was reached after a direct communication between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries earlier on Saturday.

“Pakistan’s DGMO called Indian DGMO at 15:35 hours earlier this afternoon. It was agreed between them that both sides would stop all firing and military action on land, in the air & sea with effect from 1700 hours IST. Instructions have been given on both sides to give effect to this understanding. They will talk again on the 12th of May at 1200 hours,” said Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri

According to defense sources, the ceasefire proposal was initiated by Pakistan’s DGMO and accepted by India with the understanding that it would be limited to halting military hostilities. No further talks or meetings are scheduled at this stage. The ceasefire comes after an intense period of cross-border violence triggered by the April 22 terror attack on Hindu pilgrims in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed several civilian lives and was attributed to Pakistan-backed militants.

India responded with Operation Sindoor, launched on May 6, which involved precision airstrikes on alleged terrorist bases in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The Indian government claimed that over 100 militants were neutralized. Pakistan’s retaliation included strikes on Indian military assets, with both sides reporting casualties and damage. One of the deadliest incidents occurred on May 7 in Muzaffarabad, where Indian airstrikes reportedly killed 31 individuals and damaged a mosque, drawing international concern and outrage from Islamabad.

The situation had reached a critical point with missile alerts and explosions reported in Indian cities like Pathankot, Amritsar, and Jalandhar. Civilian populations along the border began preparing underground bunkers amid fears of a broader conflict.

The ceasefire was reportedly influenced by strong diplomatic intervention from the United States. Former U.S. President Donald Trump, who remains a prominent figure in U.S. foreign affairs, is believed to have played a key role in urging Pakistan to de-escalate. Washington’s engagement has drawn comparisons to past instances where third-party diplomacy helped ease India-Pakistan tensions, though often without resolving underlying disputes.

Both sides remain cautious. India, wary of Pakistan’s track record on ceasefire violations and continued support for terrorist groups, has made it clear that any future peace process must be based on verifiable action against terrorism. Meanwhile, Pakistan continues to call for international involvement in resolving the Kashmir dispute, a stance India consistently rejects in favor of bilateral dialogue.

The fragile ceasefire offers a momentary pause in hostilities, but experts warn that without addressing core issues—including militant infiltration, cross-border terrorism, and the status of Kashmir—the risk of renewed violence remains high.

Residents near the border have expressed cautious relief, while Indian security agencies remain on high alert. Airports, including Delhi International, have resumed normal operations, though airspace monitoring remains intensified.

The coming days will test the durability of this ceasefire and determine whether this diplomatic window can evolve into meaningful dialogue or be added to the list of short-lived truces in the turbulent history of Indo-Pak relations.

In a major diplomatic breakthrough, US President Donald Trump announced that India and Pakistan have agreed to a “full and immediate ceasefire,” following a night of intense negotiations mediated by the United States. The agreement aims to halt the latest wave of hostilities between the two nuclear-armed rivals and stabilize the South Asian region after weeks of escalating violence.

The ceasefire, announced from the White House early Saturday, comes after both nations engaged in retaliatory military operations, including missile strikes and cross-border shelling, particularly around the disputed Kashmir region. Tensions peaked following India’s Operation Sindoor, a military campaign launched in early May to dismantle terror camps in Pakistan-administered territory, which was followed by Pakistani counterstrikes on over 25 Indian military installations.

President Trump, who personally led the diplomatic outreach, commended both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif for what he described as “common sense and great intelligence in the interest of global peace.” In his remarks, Trump underscored the United States’ role as a peace broker, calling the agreement a “testament to diplomacy over destruction.”

This marks a rare occasion where India has accepted third-party mediation, deviating from its longstanding policy of bilateral engagement with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. Analysts attribute the shift to a combination of intense international pressure and the re-election of President Trump, whose administration had previously signaled interest in easing South Asian tensions.

The historical backdrop of India-Pakistan conflict continues to loom large. Since partition in 1947, the two countries have fought multiple wars and experienced repeated flare-ups over Kashmir. While ceasefires have been declared in the past—most notably in 2003—these have often broken down due to unresolved underlying issues, including terrorism, border incursions, and political mistrust.

Just days prior to the announcement, India had maintained that any de-escalation would require the dismantling of terror infrastructure operating from Pakistani soil. Whether this demand was addressed in the final ceasefire framework remains unclear, though observers suggest it may surface in follow-up diplomatic engagements.

Global reactions to the ceasefire have been cautiously optimistic. The United Nations, European Union, and several regional powers have welcomed the move while calling for sustained efforts to resolve core disputes and ensure humanitarian protections for civilians affected by the recent violence.

Experts warn that the ceasefire, while significant, is only a first step. “This is not a resolution—it’s a pause,” said South Asia analyst Dr. Neha Kapoor. “Unless the underlying grievances are addressed through dialogue and structural change, the risk of relapse into conflict remains high.”

As South Asia holds its breath, the success of this ceasefire will depend not only on continued diplomatic engagement but also on the political will in New Delhi and Islamabad to pursue lasting peace over military brinkmanship.

In a stunning revelation that could further destabilize South Asia, a Pakistani military official has reportedly admitted the country’s involvement in the 2019 Pulwama terror attack, which killed 40 personnel of India’s Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The admission, captured in a video now circulating widely, contradicts Pakistan’s long-standing denial and labels the attack an act of “tactical brilliance.”

The Pulwama bombing, executed by the Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist group based in Pakistan, marked a dark chapter in India-Pakistan relations. It sparked a military confrontation that culminated in the Balakot air strikes by India and raised the specter of a broader conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Here is the video:

The recent acknowledgment comes amid rising hostilities, with India launching Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, in retaliation for a deadly terror strike in Pahalgam that claimed 26 civilian lives. The operation involved precision strikes on terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), reinforcing India’s hardline stance against cross-border terrorism.

Indian officials have yet to issue a formal response to the Pulwama admission, but sources within the Ministry of External Affairs indicated that this could dramatically reshape New Delhi’s diplomatic and strategic calculus. The revelation is expected to be brought up in global forums, with India likely to renew its demand for international sanctions and heightened pressure on Pakistan for harboring and sponsoring terror groups.

This development is already influencing regional diplomacy. Security analysts warn that such a public shift in Pakistan’s narrative not only escalates tensions but also undermines past peace initiatives, including the Kartarpur Corridor talks and various back-channel dialogues. The Pulwama attack has long been a sensitive and painful memory in India, and an admission of guilt is likely to harden public sentiment and political resolve.

As both nations brace for the fallout, global powers including the United States, United Nations, and European Union are closely monitoring the situation. The international community has consistently condemned the Pulwama attack, and a confirmed admission by Pakistan could prompt fresh rounds of diplomatic isolation or censure.

The Pakistani military official’s statement may prove to be a watershed moment in the ongoing India-Pakistan conflict narrative. If formally acknowledged by Islamabad, it could alter the regional security landscape and reinforce India’s long-standing claim that cross-border terrorism is state-sponsored.

In a landmark shift in national security doctrine, India has announced that any future acts of terrorism on its soil will be treated as an “Act of War.” The declaration signals the government’s readiness to respond with decisive and proportionate military force, marking a sharp escalation in India’s counterterrorism posture.

The new policy comes in the wake of the April 22 terror attack in the Baisaran Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 civilians—many of them tourists—were killed in a coordinated assault. Indian officials have pointed to cross-border involvement, particularly from Pakistan-based militant groups, as the source of the attack. Although Pakistan denies any role, the incident has pushed India to redefine its rules of engagement.

According to top government sources, India’s armed forces are now on heightened alert, with new protocols in place to authorize immediate retaliation in the event of another terrorist strike. The policy change reflects the government’s belief that conventional diplomatic mechanisms have failed to deter such attacks, necessitating a more aggressive, military-led response.

Historical parallels are being drawn to the Defence of India Act of 1915, which empowered the colonial government to take extraordinary measures during World War I. That legislation allowed preventive detention and trial without due process in the name of national security. While today’s India remains a constitutional democracy, the reference underscores a historical willingness to prioritize security in times of national peril.

Domestically, the move has generated strong reactions. Defense analysts have largely welcomed the policy as a long-overdue deterrent against state-sponsored terrorism, while civil rights advocates have raised concerns about the potential erosion of checks and balances in wartime scenarios.

The timing of the announcement has also fueled debate over the role of the media in shaping public sentiment during crises. On May 9, the Supreme Court overturned a Delhi High Court directive ordering Wikipedia to remove content related to a defamation case involving ANI, the news agency that first reported the story. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforced the importance of press freedom, especially during sensitive national moments.

India’s position has drawn the attention of global powers. Both the United States and the United Nations have urged restraint and encouraged dialogue between India and Pakistan, though diplomatic channels have so far failed to de-escalate tensions. International observers are closely monitoring the region amid fears that a single incident could spiral into a broader conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations.

As India recalibrates its approach to national security, the stakes have been raised significantly—not only for regional stability but also for the global fight against terrorism. The coming weeks are expected to test both India’s resolve and the international community’s capacity to manage crisis diplomacy.

With tensions between India and Pakistan escalating after the deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam and India’s subsequent retaliatory strikes under Operation Sindoor, public curiosity has turned to whether sports icons like Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar—both of whom hold honorary ranks in the Indian armed forces—could be deployed to the frontlines in the event of full-scale war.

Dhoni holds the honorary rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Territorial Army’s Parachute Regiment, and Sachin Tendulkar is a Group Captain in the Indian Air Force. While both have undergone ceremonial or symbolic training, their military roles are primarily meant to inspire youth and promote patriotism rather than engage in combat operations.

A recent government notification has empowered the Chief of Army Staff to mobilize Territorial Army personnel for essential duties, strengthening speculation about the potential involvement of celebrities who hold such ranks. However, military experts emphasize that honorary appointments are largely symbolic and do not imply operational deployment.

“The Territorial Army is part of the reserve force and can be mobilized during national emergencies, but honorary officers like Dhoni and Tendulkar are not combat-ready troops. Their primary role is motivational,” explained retired Lieutenant Colonel (Dr.) Satish Dhage.

The Territorial Army comprises civilian volunteers who undergo training and are mobilized during wartime or national emergencies. It has played key roles in past conflicts such as the Indo-China War of 1962 and the Kargil War of 1999. Cricketers like Hemu Adhikari, who served in World War II and held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, are rare examples of sportsmen directly participating in war.

In addition to Dhoni and Tendulkar, several other public figures such as Kapil Dev, Abhinav Bindra, Nana Patekar, and Mohanlal have also been granted honorary positions in the Territorial Army. These appointments are largely ceremonial and serve to bridge civilian-military relations.

While the Territorial Army can be called into active duty under extraordinary circumstances, the deployment of honorary officers like Dhoni or Tendulkar remains extremely unlikely. The purpose of their association with the forces is to serve as national icons, not frontline soldiers.

In conclusion, unless the country faces a dire, all-hands-on-deck situation, Dhoni and Tendulkar are not expected to be sent to the border. Their military ranks honor their achievements and patriotic spirit but do not translate into combat responsibilities in wartime.

Indian military strikes carried out on May 7 as part of Operation Sindoor have eliminated several top-tier terrorists affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), in what officials are calling a significant blow to Pakistan-based terror networks. Sources confirmed the deaths of five high-profile operatives, all of whom had long histories of involvement in attacks on Indian soil.

Among those neutralized:

• Mudassar Khadian Khas (alias Abu Jundal) – A prominent LeT operative, known for his involvement in organizing attacks in Jammu & Kashmir. His funeral, held at a government school in Pakistan, was attended by Hafiz Abdul Rauf of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and high-ranking Pakistani military officials, raising serious questions about the country’s ties to terror outfits.

• Hafiz Muhammed Jameel – A senior JeM leader and elder brother-in-law of Masood Azhar. His death marks the removal of a core figure within the group’s leadership hierarchy, which has overseen attacks such as the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2019 Pulwama bombing.

• Mohammad Yusuf Azhar (also known as Ustad Ji, Mohd Salim, or Ghosi Sahab) – Another JeM operative and brother-in-law of Masood Azhar. A key figure in the 1999 IC-814 hijacking, Yusuf had long been on India’s most-wanted list. His elimination is considered a strategic win for Indian counter-terror operations.

• Khalid (alias Abu Akasha) – An LeT militant known for smuggling weapons from Afghanistan and participating in attacks in Kashmir. His funeral in Faisalabad was also attended by Pakistani army officials and the city’s Deputy Commissioner, further drawing international concern.

• Mohammad Hassan Khan – Son of Mufti Asghar Khan Kashmiri, JeM’s operational commander in PoK. Hassan Khan was directly involved in coordinating terror strikes in Jammu and Kashmir and played a central role in JeM’s logistics and training.

Operation Sindoor targeted nine terrorist camps across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, including key LeT and JeM strongholds in Bahawalpur and Muridke. Intelligence reports estimate that 70 to 80 terrorists were killed, with 30 casualties each reported in Bahawalpur and Muridke.

Indian forces also destroyed a Pakistani air defense radar system in Lahore, showcasing the success of India’s Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) capability—a strategy to cripple enemy radar and missile infrastructure and ensure air dominance during operations.

The strikes came in response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack in Jammu & Kashmir, which left 26 civilians dead, including tourists. Indian officials have labeled the operation as not only a retaliation but a pre-emptive action to dismantle terror infrastructure that threatens national security.

Of particular concern is the presence of Pakistani military and civil officials at the funerals of known terrorists, a move Indian officials say reveals the deep-rooted collusion between the Pakistani state and proscribed terror groups. This has reignited calls for the international community to reassess financial and diplomatic engagements with Pakistan, especially considering its ongoing support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

India has reiterated its demand for global accountability on state-sponsored terrorism and urged international institutions to take cognizance of the latest evidence linking Pakistan to terror facilitation. Officials stated that further details would be presented to the United Nations and other global platforms in the coming days.

As Operation Sindoor continues to shift the balance against cross-border terrorism, New Delhi has signaled that it will not hesitate to take similar actions in the future should threats persist.

In a major diplomatic rebuttal, both India and Afghanistan have categorically denied Pakistan’s allegations that an Indian missile attack was launched from or targeted Afghan territory. The denials come amidst rapidly intensifying military tensions in South Asia, following a wave of deadly exchanges between India and Pakistan.

Also Read: India Rejects Pakistan’s Missile Strike Allegation on Afghanistan as “Baseless and Inflammatory”

The Afghan Ministry of Defense, represented by spokesman Inayatullah Khawarizmi, firmly dismissed the Pakistani claims as “baseless and fabricated.” Speaking to Hurriyat Radio Pashto, Khawarizmi asserted that no missile activity occurred on Afghan soil, accusing Islamabad of deliberately spreading misinformation to deflect from its own regional activities.

Echoing Afghanistan’s stance, India’s Ministry of External Affairs also rejected the accusations, labeling them “false propaganda” aimed at misleading the international community. Indian officials indirectly referenced Pakistan’s past interference in Afghanistan, asserting that the Afghan people are fully aware of who has historically respected their sovereignty—and who has not.

These denials follow India’s confirmed military operation on May 7, 2025—Operation Sindoor—in which the Indian Air Force carried out coordinated precision strikes on four Pakistani airbases: Chaklala (Rawalpindi), Murid (Chakwal), Rafiqui (Shorkot), and one undisclosed site. The operation was reportedly in retaliation for a deadly terrorist attack in Kashmir that claimed 26 civilian lives, an act India attributes to Pakistan-based terror outfits.

In response, Pakistan claimed it shot down five Indian aircraft and issued warnings of severe retaliation. Furthermore, Pakistani military officials alleged that India had used Afghan territory as a launchpad for the missile attacks—an assertion now firmly denied by both Kabul and New Delhi.

Meanwhile, civilian casualties continue to rise on both sides of the Line of Control in Kashmir, as border hostilities intensify. The growing conflict has caught the attention of global powers, with the United States calling for immediate de-escalation. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly spoke with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, offering Washington’s support to mediate talks and prevent further escalation.

Complicating matters further are the long-standing tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan over border violations, cross-border militant activity, and Pakistan’s historical involvement with groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. These factors add to the skepticism in Kabul regarding Pakistan’s narrative.

With both India and Afghanistan taking a unified stance against Islamabad’s allegations, regional observers suggest a shifting geopolitical alignment may be underway. As the international community watches closely, the need for diplomacy and restraint grows ever more urgent amid fears of a wider military confrontation in South Asia.