'Stoppage of fire' for good, lean heavily

As conflict theologists discuss and debate threadbare what constitutes a 'ceasefire' and what ' stoppage of fire', what an 'agreement' and what an 'understanding,' there is also some nitpicking over Donald Trump's latest claim-that the reprieve from escalation in hostilities between India and Pakistan was achieved after 'a long night of talks mediated by' the US.

While New Delhi reiterated that the agreement was bilateral without third-party interference, Islamabad acknowledged 'with appreciation the constructive role played by the United States, alongside other friendly states, in supporting the recent ceasefire understanding between Pakistan and India'.

Whoever claims the narrative as of now, the fact that India and Pakistan have-after a worrisome lag that saw continuation of hostilities for some hours after 'stoppage of fire' was agreed upon-held the peace, is welcome.

True, this truce seems tenuous, Pakistan's notorious 'plausible deniability' having caused this latest round of conflict in the first place with the Pahalgam terrorist attack on April 22. With that fact pegged to the ground, India's objective, along with whatever military action may be needed, should be to lean diplomatically, heavily, on Rawalpindi's sponsors.

Terrorism, and escalation by a state actor, need funding that leaves, however nebulous, a money trail. This is what got Pakistan on the grey list of Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global money-laundering and terrorist-financing watchdog, in the first place.

That NSA Ajit Doval spoke with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi on Saturday on the phone is welcome. This, too, sends out the right message that New Delhi knows whom to talk the talk with, to make 'stoppage of fire' and 'ceasefire' the same permanent thing.