On Saturday, India and Pakistan announced a ceasefire, effectively halting days of escalating violence that had seen both countries exchanging fire, following a missile strike by India into Pakistan. This decision to cease hostilities was welcomed by observers, though many experts caution that the underlying tensions remain dangerously high.

According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the United States played a mediating role in achieving this ceasefire, engaging in dialogue with officials from both nations. However, shortly after the ceasefire was declared, India accused Pakistan of breaching the agreement, claiming that it was responding to ongoing violations.

The latest spate of violence can be traced back to a militant attack in April, referred to as the Pahalgam incident, which claimed the lives of 26 individuals in Indian-administered Kashmir. India has consistently held Pakistan responsible for such attacks, a claim that Pakistan vehemently denies. This blame-game often exacerbates hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Retired Colonel Stephen Ganyard, an ABC News contributor and former State Department official, remarked, “This is just the most recent in a series of conflicts between Pakistan and India.” He emphasized the long-standing nature of their discord, which has persisted since Pakistan's formation in the late 1940s. With both countries now possessing nuclear weapons, the potential for escalation is particularly alarming, with Ganyard noting, “Of any place in the world, the easiest to imagine a nuclear exchange happening is between Pakistan and India.”

The roots of this conflict can be traced back to the partition of British India in 1947, which led to the establishment of two separate states: India and Pakistan. Kashmir became a focal point of contention during this period. The princely states were given the choice to join either nation, but Kashmir's ruler at the time chose to accede to India after seeking its assistance against an invasion. This agreement has never been recognized by Pakistan, which views Kashmir as a Muslim-majority region that should belong to them.

The region has been a source of military conflict, with the first war over Kashmir taking place shortly after independence. By 1949, a ceasefire line was established, dividing Kashmir between the two countries. Today, India controls the southern part, while Pakistan administers the northern and western portions. China also holds a segment of the region, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

Ganyard pointed out that the geographical proximity of these nations makes it inevitable for tensions to spill over, particularly because both nations continue to vie for control over various regions of Kashmir and Jammu. The conflict is intensified by strong nationalist feelings and religious fervor on both sides, with Ganyard highlighting the significant role that religion plays in their relationship. He noted, “These are two countries with very strong religious feelings, and that religion gets injected into the relationship.”

The decades following their independence have been marked by several wars, military skirmishes, and terrorist attacks, with significant incidents occurring in 2008, 2016, and 2019 that targeted Indian military sites and civilians. Recently, however, there had been a slight decrease in tension, with increased tourism in Kashmir signaling a potential return to normalcy.

The most recent violence escalated dramatically after the April 22 attack in Pahalgam, which targeted Indian tourists and marked a shift from previous military-focused assaults. In response, India launched a missile attack targeting what it termed “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan. Ganyard noted that this retaliatory strike was clearly a reaction to the earlier massacre of tourists, and before the ceasefire was declared, there was a palpable sense of anxiety across the international community regarding the potential for renewed large-scale conflict.

As both nations are nuclear powers, the situation is fraught with risk. Ganyard remarked that the combination of deep-seated religious and territorial grievances, coupled with nuclear capabilities, creates a volatile scenario that could easily spiral out of control. India and Pakistan each possess between 160 and 170 nuclear warheads and neither has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which adds another layer of complexity to their relationship.

In the wake of the recent attack and subsequent missile strike, India suspended a vital water treaty with Pakistan concerning the Indus River, a move that could further escalate tensions. Ganyard warned that conflicts over water resources could potentially lead to war, marking the suspension of this treaty as a significant and alarming development.

Despite the announcement of a ceasefire, experts remain skeptical about the immediacy of a lasting resolution to the Kashmir issue. Historical attempts at negotiation have often been thwarted by the unstable political climate within Pakistan. Gupta stated, “I think there is always a possibility of resolving conflicts, but it doesn’t seem immediate. It would require a lot of very sincere effort.”

In summary, while the ceasefire provides a temporary respite, observers caution that the factors fueling the conflict—religious differences, territorial disputes, and water scarcity—will continue to create a challenging and precarious atmosphere between India and Pakistan.