Questions are being raised about Delhi’s diplomacy after recent India-Pakistan tensions, particularly following incidents like the Pahalgam attack and India’s subsequent “Operation Sindoor” (May 2025), for several key reasons:

1. Perceived Failure to Garner International Condemnation of Pakistan:

• Lack of Unanimous Support: Despite India’s efforts to highlight Pakistan’s alleged role in cross-border terrorism, many in the international community, including some of India’s strategic partners, did not offer outright condemnation of Pakistan. Instead, they often called for “restraint and dialogue” from both sides, which New Delhi viewed as a diplomatic setback.
• “Hyphenation” by Major Powers: India has long sought to de-hyphenate its relationship with Pakistan in the eyes of the international community, wishing to be seen as a major power in its own right, not merely as one half of a South Asian rivalry. The intervention of powers like the US to broker a ceasefire and their calls for restraint have been seen as a re-hyphenation, much to India’s displeasure.
• Pakistan’s Counter-Narrative: Pakistan actively launched its own diplomatic offensive to present itself as a responsible state and project India as the aggressor, which, in some instances, seemed to gain traction or at least dilute India’s narrative.

2. Reliance on External Mediation for De-escalation:

• US-Brokered Ceasefire: The recent ceasefire was reportedly brokered by the United States. While crucial for de-escalation between two nuclear-armed states, this intervention led to questions about India’s ability to manage the crisis independently and to force Pakistan to back down without external help. It implied a reliance on third-party intervention, which India traditionally tries to avoid in bilateral issues with Pakistan.
• Questioning “Strategic Autonomy”: This reliance on external mediation, especially from the US, challenges India’s proclaimed foreign policy of “strategic autonomy” or “multi-alignment.” Critics argue that if India cannot resolve such critical security issues with a neighboring nuclear power on its own terms, its strategic autonomy is limited.

3. Domestic Rhetoric vs. Diplomatic Outcomes:

• Strong Assertions, Mixed Results: The Indian government’s strong public statements about a “new normal” of proactive responses to terrorism and its military actions (like Operation Sindoor) were not always matched by the desired diplomatic outcomes on the international stage. The perceived lack of international backing for India’s actions, despite its firm stance, led to questions about the effectiveness of its diplomatic outreach.
• Controlling the Narrative: There’s been criticism that New Delhi’s efforts to control the narrative, both domestically and internationally, sometimes relied on unverified claims or a less transparent approach, which could have dented its international credibility.

4. Performance of “Multi-Alignment” in Crisis:

• Neutral Stances from Allies: Countries that India considers strategic partners or allies (like the US, Russia, and even some BRICS members) adopted largely neutral stances during the peak of the tensions, calling for de-escalation rather than explicitly siding with India or condemning Pakistan. This made some observers question the efficacy of India’s multi-alignment strategy in times of acute crisis, suggesting it didn’t translate into robust diplomatic support when most needed.
• China-Pakistan Factor: The deep strategic alliance between China and Pakistan, particularly China’s diplomatic backing for Pakistan and its military support, presents a formidable challenge to India’s foreign policy. India’s diplomacy is questioned on how effectively it can manage this “threshold alliance” and prevent China from leveraging India-Pakistan tensions to its own advantage.

5. Long-term Policy Toward Pakistan:

• Lack of a Clear Pakistan Policy: Some analysts argue that a fundamental issue is India’s perceived lack of a clearly stipulated, consistent long-term policy for dealing with Pakistan beyond immediate reactions to terrorism. This absence of a clear vision for peace or normalization is seen as hindering effective diplomacy.
• Impact on Other Diplomatic Avenues: India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty in the wake of the Pahalgam attack, for instance, was seen by some as a major diplomatic misstep that alienated the international community rather than isolating Pakistan, and potentially further complicated a vital shared resource.

In essence, the questioning of Delhi’s diplomacy after the recent India-Pakistan tensions stems from a perception that India’s assertive military posture was not always effectively translated into clear diplomatic victories, and that its efforts to garner international support or isolate Pakistan met with limited success, often requiring external mediation. This has prompted introspection about the execution and broader strategic effectiveness of India’s foreign policy in its most critical bilateral relationship.

See less