India, May 28 -- The Pahalgam massacre of innocent tourists from India and Nepal on April 22 and its aftermath have redefined India-Pakistan relations. While attacks in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists have been of frequent occurrence, it is only in the past decade that the Union government has truly endeavoured to draw red lines. Pakistan had committed in a joint statement in January 2004 to "not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner". The country has consistently reneged on this and the bilateralism envisaged under the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. The egregious attack by Pakistani terrorists at multiple locations in Mumbai in November 2008, which led to scores of deaths including those of foreigners, had marked a new low in cross-border terrorism even by Pakistan's dismal track record. One would have expected India to undertake military retribution. However, the government of the day decided to stay its hand. An emboldened Pakistan, outgunned conventionally, continued to use terrorism as part of its grey zone tactics against India, just below the threshold of military conflict. That threshold has changed following Operation Sindoor. Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi has repeatedly demonstrated firm resolve in dealing with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. India's zero tolerance for terrorism translated into military retaliation against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, with cross-border land and air strikes in 2016 and 2019, respectively. Operation Sindoor is a notch higher on the spectrum of dissuasion. In the wake of the Pahalgam massacre, Modi conveyed an unambiguous message to the perpetrators of the heinous act - that India would pursue them to the very ends of the earth. Given the public outcry, it was only a matter of time that India would take recourse to punitive military action. In the early hours of May 7, the Indian armed forces destroyed nine key nerve centres of Pakistan-based terrorist networks of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) deep inside that country. The free hand given to the armed forces ensured that India's retaliation was "focussed, measured and non-escalatory". What followed over the next four days was a kaleidoscopic blur. Despite large-scale propaganda, concocted news and deliberate obfuscation of facts, Pakistan failed to counter the hard evidence of battlefield footage put out by India. The extensive damage inflicted by the Indian armed forces was on full display. Pakistan unleashed a flurry of drones, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), loitering munitions and missiles on multiple military targets in India but came a cropper in the face of India's Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) and counter-drone networks. The subsequent massive retaliation by India on military targets brought Pakistan to its knees, compelling its director general of military operations (DGMO) to propose a ceasefire to his Indian counterpart. PM Modi's public statements following the ceasefire have introduced a "new normal" in India-Pakistan relations. The key point is that Operation Sindoor is on pause. His assertion that India would not differentiate between terrorist masterminds and the governments that support them is noteworthy. It could imply that any future misadventure by Pakistan-based terrorist networks could invite the wrath of the Indian armed forces on targets beyond the terrorist masterminds. The dust having settled, it is clear the nuclear dimension was not in play at any point of time. Further, India's engagement of key global partners in response to their interest in the unfolding events cannot be construed as intervention or mediation. The ceasefire was a military matter, agreed upon through military channels, following the Pakistani DGMO's initiative. For Pakistan, the writing is on the wall. Terrorism and talks - or for that matter, trade, sporting and cultural ties - cannot go together just as "water and blood" cannot flow together. It is no wonder that India has put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. Pakistan has long violated the 1960 treaty by disregarding the "spirit of goodwill and friendship" enshrined in its preamble. Moreover, the climate crisis, demographic shifts and technological advancements in hydrological science necessitate fresh approaches. Amidst the din, American President Donald Trump's gratuitous pronouncements created ripples. There is no gainsaying the fact that India's historical rejection of a third-party role needs better appreciation in Washington. Trump may well be under pressure to project an image of a "peacemaker". After all, his much-publicised goal of ending the Ukraine conflict remains elusive. For India, bilateralism is a sacrosanct principle for dealing with Pakistan. Talks, if any, will have to centre on concrete and verifiable action by Pakistan to eliminate terrorist havens on its soil, and the vacation of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Amidst the din, China's role came under the lens. From providing military equipment and lethal stores and supporting Pakistan's disinformation campaign, to securing Pakistan's interests in deliberations in the United Nations Security Council, the "all-weather" friendship was in full bloom. A small irony lies in Trump getting the better of Beijing. As is well known, China aspires to create a putative bailiwick in South Asia. On May 7, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson inter alia expressed Beijing's desire to play "a constructive role in easing the current tensions". This sentiment was repeated a few days later, on May 12. In this context, Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif's attempt to ingratiate himself into Trump's good books, even if through the fiction of mediation, should prove somewhat galling to Beijing. Reining in the malevolent impulses of a subaltern and maintaining objectivity on India-Pakistan issues should have been a better choice for China....