We should engage with the world, yes, but always on our own terms.
Following the recent short but intense Operation Sindoor, a military retaliation by India against Pakistan-based terror groups after the horrific Pahalgam massacre of innocent Hindu tourists, the Government of India (GOI) has launched a new diplomatic initiative being referred to as "Sindoor Diplomacy." This initiative involves sending multiple high-level delegations from across all political parties (even from Congress, TMC, AAP, etc.) to influential capitals around the world to raise awareness about the persistent threat posed by Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and to garner international support for India's position.
While this diplomatic push may appear commendable on the surface, it is imperative to examine the true impact and potential effectiveness of such a move. The primary aim of this diplomatic offensive is to highlight the grave security challenges India faces due to Pakistan's continued patronage of cross-border terrorism and to explain that India’s military response in Operation Sindoor was not aggression but a necessary act of self-defence after the barbaric and unprovoked attack in Pahalgam.
However, the real question that arises is whether this diplomatic exercise will exert any meaningful pressure on Pakistan. History tells us otherwise. The Pakistani state, over the years, has perfected the art of deception in the global arena: playing both victim and aggressor depending on the audience. It has successfully nurtured an ecosystem of jihadist proxies under the guise of ideological or strategic depth while simultaneously portraying itself as a frontline state in the so-called war on terror. Despite reams of evidence and countless intelligence reports pointing towards the involvement of Pakistan’s military-intelligence apparatus in fostering terrorism, global powers have time and again chosen to turn a blind eye, often due to their own geopolitical compulsions.
If India’s diplomatic mission is truly meant to isolate Pakistan and encourage internal disintegration, essentially seeking to bifurcate Pakistan into smaller, more manageable entities, then perhaps there is some strategic logic behind this effort.
However, to believe that moral arguments, however well-articulated, will convince the Pakistani establishment to dismantle its terror infrastructure is nothing short of a utopian fantasy. Islamabad’s obsession with “bleeding India with a thousand cuts” remains deeply embedded in its security doctrine. It is not just a tactical strategy; it is a national obsession built on decades of military dominance over the civilian apparatus.
Despite the recent hostilities and India’s clear demonstration of military capability, global financial institutions continue to indulge Pakistan. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), for instance, has recently extended a munificent loan package to the country, and reports suggest that the United States is actively considering a $40 billion aid package ostensibly meant for developmental purposes. But let’s not be naïve; much of this money will undoubtedly be funnelled, directly or indirectly, into propping up Pakistan’s military and terror infrastructure. In the name of economic revival, these funds will grease the wheels of a terror-exporting machine that thrives on chaos in Kashmir and beyond.
The global geopolitical landscape has shifted considerably in recent years. Alliances are in flux, old loyalties have eroded, and nations are increasingly driven by narrow, transactional interests rather than overarching principles or values. India, for its part, has chosen not to join military alliances such as the QUAD in any binding manner. This has not gone unnoticed by the United States, which appears to be using every tool at its disposal to slow down India’s rise, whether economically, diplomatically, or militarily. The so-called ‘free world’ is proving to be anything but free when it comes to embracing India’s strategic autonomy.
Morality, it seems, has become a dirty word in global diplomacy. It is conveniently invoked by Western powers to propagate their own narratives and to justify interventions in some parts of the world while conveniently ignoring atrocities in others. The West’s selective outrage is evident in the way it views human rights violations in countries of strategic importance versus those it considers dispensable. The concept of universal values has thus been reduced to a rhetorical weapon, deployed or shelved based on political convenience.
It is important to remember that India has weathered this storm before. From the 1970s through to the early 2000s, successive American administrations imposed sanctions and trade restrictions on India, ostensibly in response to nuclear tests or policy differences. Yet India not only survived these sanctions but also made remarkable strides in a variety of sectors, including science, technology, agriculture, and defence. If a future American administration—perhaps one led by a whimsical and erratic leader like Donald Trump—chooses to reimpose draconian measures, there is every reason to believe that India will continue to progress undeterred.
India’s growth story is rooted in its people, its democratic institutions, and its resilient economy. It does not need to bend the knee to global superpowers to assert its sovereignty. Every country has the right to exercise strategic freedom in its policymaking. There is no compulsion to kowtow to the so-called rules-based international order if that order consistently fails to uphold India’s legitimate concerns.
The Bush-era shift in American foreign policy was a moment of clarity. Under President George W. Bush, the United States came to understand that punitive measures against a large, democratic country like India were not only futile but also counterproductive. A partnership based on mutual respect and shared interests was the way forward. Unfortunately, under a Trump-led administration, such maturity may be lost. Trump’s presidency was marked by impulsive decision-making and a disregard for longstanding alliances. His inability to grasp the strategic importance of India as a counterweight to China in Asia only highlights the need for India to adopt a policy of cautious engagement and strategic self-reliance.
Given the current global mood and the ever-shifting power dynamics, India would do well to adopt a posture of dignified resilience. It must maintain a stoic, unsentimental approach to international diplomacy, one that is rooted in realism, not idealism.
We must tighten our belts, invest in indigenous capacities, and forge strong bilateral relationships where mutual benefit is clear. There should be no illusions about the West’s intentions, nor any blind faith in global forums that have repeatedly failed to protect India’s interests.
Operation Sindoor may have ended with a ceasefire, but the larger battle of narratives, of perceptions, of ideologies, is far from over. India must continue to defend its borders, safeguard its citizens, and promote its interests unapologetically on the global stage.
0 Comments