I'll try to remain as objective as possible, but from a neutral standpoint, it appears that India came out looking somewhat disadvantaged in this entire episode. India launched missile strikes into mainland Pakistan, reportedly to avenge the Pelgham massacre victims. This was followed by drone activity and attacks on Pakistani airbases. However, when Pakistan retaliated, both sides quickly agreed to a ceasefire. While the true reasons for the ceasefire may be more complex, the optics suggest that Pakistan may have had the final say in this exchange. India’s aggressive posture was quickly dialed back after Pakistan’s response, which could be interpreted as a weakness.
The fundamental question is: What was India’s objective in launching these strikes? If the aim was merely to bomb a few buildings, then that might have been achieved. But if the intent was to dismantle an alleged terrorist infrastructure or eliminate high-value targets, then the results are unclear at best. India has not publicly confirmed the elimination of any major figures, nor has it provided names or evidence of specific successful hits. From a neutral perspective, claiming to have neutralized a terrorist network without identifying any key individuals or showing concrete outcomes doesn’t hold much weight.
Moreover, regardless of official denials, multiple credible international news sources have reported that Pakistan shot down at least one Indian Rafale fighter jet on May 7. That’s a tangible loss and, symbolically, a win for the Pakistan Air Force, which again demonstrated its capacity to defend its airspace. Yes, India inflicted damage on Pakistani airbases — that was expected given India’s conventional military superiority. However, what many anticipated was an overwhelming show of force that would bring Pakistan to its knees — something that clearly didn’t happen.
If India truly destroyed all of Pakistan’s airbases, as some claims suggest, then agreeing to a ceasefire seems counterintuitive. Pakistan would have had a reason to seek de-escalation in that case, but India should have theoretically pushed forward to eliminate what it calls the menace of state-sponsored terrorism. Instead, the abrupt shift to a ceasefire doesn’t support the narrative of a decisive Indian victory.
I’m not saying Pakistan “won” or forced India into a ceasefire — that would be overly simplistic. But what does appear likely is that external diplomatic pressure, particularly from the United States, played a role. The U.S. may have signaled to India that it's not as dominant as it perceives itself to be on the escalation ladder and that continuing the conflict risked drawing both nations into a full-scale war — something neither side could easily back away from later. Hence, a ceasefire was the most pragmatic route forward for both.