Poised at the diplomatic crossroads

Operation Sindoor redefined India’s security doctrine and counterterrorism template. However, it also unveiled a complex diplomatic landscape for India. New Delhi confronted a dual reality. While several countries unequivocally condemned the Pahalgam terrorist attack, the same support, barring a few like-minded partners, wasn’t forthcoming for its right to self-defence against Pakistan-sponsored acts of cross-border terrorism. Many of the global reactions to the April 2025 attack and the subsequent military campaign unfolded along familiar lines — balancing the imperative of maintaining closer ties with India, while remaining wary of a larger conflagration in South Asia. This global diplomatic trapeze highlighted new challenges for South Block as it sought to consolidate the battlefield victory of Operation Sindoor into a narrative advantage.

Many of the global reactions to the April 2025 attack and the subsequent military campaign unfolded along familiar lines — balancing the imperative of maintaining closer ties with India, while remaining wary of a larger conflagration in South Asia.

Mixed signals

In the immediate aftermath of the civilian massacre in the Baisaran valley of Jammu and Kashmir, there was global outrage against the terrorist attack. Headlining the global reactions was the statement from the Foreign Ministers of the G7 bloc and the European Union (EU), which condemned the violent act. Besides, the leaders of the United States and Russia spoke with Prime Minister Narendra Modi immediately after the attack. The fact that the attack took place during U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance’s visit to India added a significant diplomatic context to the incident. Of course, this support was qualified as evident from both the G7 and the EU’s statement, which asked India and Pakistan to exercise “maximum restraint”, to de-escalate tensions, and desist from further attacks. Russia, too, urged both countries to “engage in constructive dialogue to resolve their disagreements peacefully”.

The dastardly nature of the attack drove even the Afghan Taliban and Turkiye, which have traditionally sided with Pakistan, to denounce the attack. Istanbul termed it “heinous”, while the Taliban said they were “concerned at the loss of tourists’ lives”. A standout in these reactions was the one from China, which reiterated Pakistan’s demand for an “impartial probe” into the attack. Another noteworthy reaction came from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which termed India’s accusations of Pakistani involvement in the Pahalgam attack as “unfounded”, which, in its opinion, were “inflaming tensions in an already volatile region”. The OIC reaction was interesting given that in 2019, days after the Balakot air strike and the Pulwama suicide attack, the bloc had, for the first time, invited India as the guest of honour at its meeting in Abu Dhabi, despite Pakistan’s vocal opposition.

A standout in these reactions was the one from China, which reiterated Pakistan’s demand for an “impartial probe” into the attack.

Among the South Asian countries, a remarkable tone of neutrality was evident, barring Nepal, which lost one of its citizens in the attack. Kathmandu affirmed that it “stands together with all in the fight against terrorism”. Both Sri Lanka and Bangladesh’s stances, meanwhile, involved variations of neutrality: Colombo stated that it will “not get involved in geopolitical issues within the Indian Ocean”, whereas Dhaka urged both countries to “show restraint and refrain from taking any steps that could further aggravate the situation”.

As tensions escalated between India and Pakistan, the global tone also shifted.

Defend but don’t escalate

In the early morning of May 7, the Indian military launched Operation Sindoor, carrying out precision strikes against terrorist facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian action evoked mixed reactions. Several countries supported the Indian military campaign. The French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, stated that France understood”"India’s desire to protect itself against the scourge of terrorism”. Israel’s Ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, also supported India’s right to defend itself against terrorism. Similarly, the Armenian Foreign Minister, Ararat Mirzoyan, also expressed support for India’s right to defend itself against terrorism. Meanwhile, China, whose supplied hardware was used by the Pakistan military, termed Indian actions “regrettable”.

Notably, India had briefed the U.S., the U.K., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Russia about its military operations and related developments. In addition, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval had briefed his U.S. counterpart and Secretary of State Marco Rubio about Indian actions. Reportedly, Doval also mentioned that “India had no intent to escalate but was well-prepared to retaliate resolutely should Pakistan decide to escalate”. However, as Pakistan escalated with its hostile drone activity, aerial strikes, and nuclear bluster, and as fears of wider military hostilities loomed, calls for de-escalation and restraint dominated the diplomatic reactions. Several countries, such as the UK., called upon both India and Pakistan to de-escalate and engage in dialogue. U.S. Vice-President Vance suggested that the India-Pakistan conflict is “fundamentally none of our business” while cautioning against nuclear war. He and his colleague, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called upon both countries to de-escalate as quickly as possible. However, this state of affairs changed quickly as U.S. officials received “alarming intelligence” of potentially catastrophic escalation, even as Pakistan reached out to them seeking cessation of hostilities.

U.S. Vice-President Vance suggested that the India-Pakistan conflict is “fundamentally none of our business” while cautioning against nuclear war.

The same approach was followed by the Persian Gulf monarchies, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which pressed for de-escalation to avoid a wider conflagration that could also impact their interests. Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Adel Al-Jubeir, visited both New Delhi and Islamabad to diffuse tensions, while the country’s Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah, spoke to leaders from both countries.

When the hostilities paused between the two sides, a tone of relief was evident in diplomatic reactions. The German Foreign Minister, Johann Wadephul, for instance, stated weeks after the ceasefire: “We very much appreciate that a ceasefire has been reached, and we hope that there will be a solution soon.” While U.S. President Donald Trump claimed credit for the “ceasefire,” Pakistan claimed that about “three dozen” countries facilitated the intervention with India.

Foreign media's framing of the conflict

Foreign media’s coverage plugged diplomatic reactions to Operation Sindoor. Much of the media coverage tended to be mixed, with state media like Turkiye’s TRT World and Anadolu Agency and China’s Global Times reflecting their respective governments’ official lines. Many outlets focused on the significance of the Indian military action and the fact that it was in response to the Pahalgam attack. The BBC highlighted that the Pahalgam massacre was “the worst attack on civilians in the region in two decades and sparked widespread anger in India”. The Russian TASS news agency highlighted that Operation Sindoor aimed at “targeting the roots of cross-border terror planning”. The French newspaper Le Monde compared the strikes of May 7 with the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strike and noted that India’s response this time was “much more heightened and the retaliatory strikes much stronger”.

The intensified cross-border shelling from the Pakistani side immediately after the Indian strikes also featured in the media coverage. The UAE’s The National reported on the human toll and property damage caused by the Pakistani shelling in the border areas. In addition, as expected, speculation around the loss of Indian fighter jets, too, figured prominently in the Western media’s coverage, with CNN quoting a French official about the purported loss of a Rafale fighter jet of the Indian Air Force. Similarly, the Chinese media focused on the alleged impact of the Pakistani missile strikes on May 10, with China’s Xinhua circulating the Pakistani claim of targeting and damaging the S-400 missile system at Punjab’s Adampur air base.

Navigating diplomatic minefield

The divergent and cautious diplomatic responses to the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor pose a new challenge for Indian diplomacy. This challenge is magnified by the perception that while New Delhi dominated the battlefield by inflicting severe damage on the Pakistani military, the dynamics surrounding the ceasefire and its announcement had spun narratives that challenged this dominance. The despatching of the seven all-party delegations to various countries post-ceasefire announcement perhaps emanated from this perceived need to rectify the global perception, even as these delegations underscored India’s policy of zero-tolerance against terrorism to the global audience.

The way President Trump has gone hammer and tongs, taking credit for brokering the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, has caused consternation in South Block, given the diplomatic sensitivities on the issue and New Delhi’s desire to retain and project its own sense of agency in managing its security affairs.

Many countries were sympathetic enough to comprehend the threat posed by cross-border terrorism to India. However, apprehensions over the potential emergence of another conflict, at a time when two raging wars in Europe and West Asia are under way, also shaped the global reactions. In that sense, India was expected to defend its national interests and yet not escalate the hostilities beyond a point against Pakistan, the chief perpetrator of the monstrosity at Pahalgam.

Perhaps the most principal complication arising post-Sindoor for the Indian foreign policy establishment is steering the relationship with the U.S. and the Trump administration. The way President Trump has gone hammer and tongs, taking credit for brokering the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, has caused consternation in South Block, given the diplomatic sensitivities on the issue and New Delhi’s desire to retain and project its own sense of agency in managing its security affairs. Indian officials have time and again set the record straight on the issue. However, Trump’s repeated claims of credit complicates India’s attempts to shape the narrative both domestically and internationally.

Perhaps, Trump’s rhetoric wouldn’t have mattered as much had it not been for his very public hobnobbing with the Pakistani military and Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, just weeks after the conflict with India. Moreover, the U.S. officials’ characterisation of Pakistan as "a phenomenal partner" in counterterrorism efforts, coupled with their pursuit of expanded bilateral collaboration on trade and investment fronts, signals a potential reset in the U.S.-Pakistan ties. This marks a divergence from previous U.S. policy towards Pakistan as well as Trump’s own earlier stance, in which he had criticised Pakistani support for terrorism. More worryingly, it raises the spectre of India-Pakistan hyphenation, something that Indian diplomacy had spent at least a decade undoing. This development is expected to put strain on India-U.S. relations in the short term, potentially upending the recent upward trajectory of the bilateral partnership altogether.

The consolidation of the China-Pakistan axis will pose an even greater test for Indian diplomacy. During Operation Sindoor, Pakistan deployed Chinese military hardware against India. Besides, it reportedly worked with China to dilute the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution condemning the Pahalgam attack. China’s shielding of Pakistan's actions, along with amplifying its propaganda, not only obstructs India’s counterterrorism agenda but also deepens India’s security dilemma.

The India-China bilateral relationship is thawing after a five-year-long border stand-off. However, this thaw is fragile as it masks Beijing’s deceitfulness, whereby on one hand it continues to lend sophisticated defence equipment (including, the recent supply of 40 J-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft) to bolster Pakistan’s military capability, even as it seeks to engage India in talks for restoration of normalcy at the Line of Actual Control. This calls for Indian diplomacy to maintain proactive assertiveness on its security concerns vis-à-vis China to tackle the latter’s duplicitous behaviour.

The other challenging front that opened for Indian diplomacy during this crisis was Turkiye. While Ankara condemned the Pahalgam attack, it also strongly supported Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, which it labelled as “provocative”. It has consistently supported Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir issue. But more worryingly, it has also deepened its defence partnership with Pakistan, supplying a range of drones, cruise missiles, and naval ships. Pakistan deployed some of this equipment during its retaliatory strikes against India. This alignment with Pakistan has indeed caused a long-term setback for India-Turkiye ties, despite flourishing commerce, trade, and tourism ties. New Delhi has already begun to recalibrate its commercial engagement with Ankara. However, navigating this relationship remains a challenge given Ankara’s significant clout in the Muslim world.

The Prime Minister categorically ruled out the possibility of reinstating the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) until Pakistan abandons the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

Regarding Pakistan, the Indian diplomatic template has become more distinctly defined. Prime Minister Modi has unequivocally asserted that India will not make a distinction between terrorists and those who abet them, thereby placing the onus squarely on the Pakistani military, civilian government, and the society at large for the continued activities of the anti-India terrorist groups. He further underscored that any future  terrorist attack will be construed as an act of war, signalling that the Pakistani military can no longer exploit the pretext of "plausible deniability" to evade accountability. Moreover, the Prime Minister categorically ruled out the possibility of reinstating the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) until Pakistan abandons the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Cross-border terrorism against India is no longer a "cost-free option" for Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

Of course, this is the beginning of a long diplomatic game with Pakistan. While hostilities on the battlefield may have paused, Indian diplomacy must maintain pressure on Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Besides the IWT, New Delhi is also keen to highlight Pakistan’s status as the hotbed of terrorism, particularly at the UNSC’s 1267 sanctions committee, and the Financial Action Task Force, the Paris-based terrorist financing watchdog. Making a compelling case about Pakistan’s inadequate efforts to rein in the proscribed groups in front of the global community and build a consensus on Islamabad’s culpability will be a key task for Indian diplomacy in the days and weeks ahead.

Broadly, Operation Sindoor has presented a new Indian security doctrine and a new normal in India’s counterterrorism response. The diplomatic developments around it have highlighted new challenges for the Indian diplomatic establishment. It is expected to shape New Delhi’s diplomatic engagements in the immediate future, with a focus on sharpening its strategic autonomy approach and diversifying partnerships with like-minded countries. A sustained and proactive global outreach will also be essential to mend the international perception about Sindoor and the ceasefire. This will ensure that the Indian perspective is accurately represented and widely comprehended.

This commentary originally appeared in The Hindu.

• International Affairs
• China
• India
• Pakistan
• USA and Canada
• ceasefire diplomacy
• ceasefire diplomacy
• ceasefire diplomacy
• China Pakistan axis
• counterterrorism strategy
• cross-border terrorism
• diplomatic reactions
• india pakistan conflict
• Indian military strikes
• operation sindoor
• Pahalgam attack
• strategic autonomy

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

PREV NEXT