India, under the BJP-led Modi government, tried to diplomatically isolate Pakistan on the global stage in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack in Indian Occupied Jammu & Kashmir. It is important to highlight that this is not the first time that the Indian government has attempted to use diplomatic means to portray Pakistan in a negative light. Historically, India has been using it to advance its foreign policy objectives that run counter to Pakistan’s national interests. A similar pattern was observed during post-Pahalgam attack with greater intensity and urgency. It was a reflection of a more assertive foreign policy posture under the BJP-led government. In line with this approach, New-Delhi launched a coordinated diplomatic offensive to implicate Pakistan and garner sympathy from influential global capitals particularly Washington, Paris, London, Moscow, and Brussels. India also engaged its Quad partners Japan & Australia along with international institutions like the United Nations.
The Indian effort was to achieve four key objectives. First, India sought to push forward its narrative against Pakistan to mobilize international opinion as a means of exerting diplomatic pressure. Second, India tried to link Pakistan with terrorism despite the fact that Pakistan remained a frontline state against this global menace. It has suffered the loss of tens of thousands of lives both civilians and military personnel and economic losses as well in this ongoing war. Third, the above mentioned objectives were used to achieve a larger strategic goal to build legitimacy for military response against Pakistan under the guise of counter-terrorism. India wanted to minimize international backlash and criticism from key global players around the world. Fourth, India pursued efforts to weaken or delegitimize Pakistan’s position on the Kashmir issue. Thereby, it attempted to consolidate its perspective on Kashmir and to secure broader support for its own regional agenda in South-Asia.
Thereafter, India in order to advance the above cited goals or aims undertook a series of practical steps. It includes special briefings to New-Delhi based foreign envoys, coordinated media campaigns at both the domestic and international levels, and mobilized Indian diaspora to stage protests outside Pakistani embassies. Moreover, New-Delhi allegedly encouraged its proxies such as TTP & BLA to intensify attacks in Pakistan. It was reinforced by a major infiltration attempt from the Afghan side that resulted in the deaths of 54 militants on 27 April, 2025 in KP according to the ISPR. The timing of this attempt by militants showed that it was done at the behest of India and was part of a strategy to exert pressure on Pakistan through both conventional and unconventional means in the aftermath of the Pahalgam incident. Additionally, Indian leadership, both Prime Minister Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar engaged various leaders around the world to present their version of events. As a result, many regional and extra-regional powers expressed humanitarian solidarity with the victims of the incident. However, India failed to receive the kind of support it anticipated and not a single country endorsed New-Delhi’s claims as it failed to present credible evidence against Pakistan.
In addition to these diplomatic offensives, Modi-led government announced a series of aggressive measures through Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) that significantly impacted bilateral relations with Pakistan. The most notable announcement made by New-Delhi was suspension of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). In response to Indian moves, Islamabad announced a series of retaliatory measures via high-level National Security Committee (NSC). These all above mentioned moves from both sides were part of initial phase of the crisis. However, the situation changed when India opted for a military response.
The downing of 6 aircrafts was both a strategic and symbolic setback for New-Delhi
India carried out a series of airstrikes deep inside mainland Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) on the night of 6 & 7 May, 2025. India code named it as “Operation Sindoor”. Pakistan’s military confirmed the strikes and reported deaths of innocent civilian’s lives including women, children, and the elderly. During the ensuing exchange, India reportedly lost 6 aircrafts. It includes three Rafale, one Sukhoi Su-30, one MiG-29, and one Mirage 2000. Those in New-Delhi who thought that their strikes would go unanswered were surprised by Pakistan’s response. The downing of 6 aircrafts was both a strategic and a symbolic setback for New-Delhi. Pakistan’s response to India on the night of 6 and 7 May was swift and calibrated that punctured Indian narrative of unchallenged conventional superiority for the second time since 2019.
Pakistan in response to Indian airstrikes had vowed to respond. It launched its operation codenamed as “Bunyan –ul – Marsoos” which means “Wall of Steel” on 10th May, 2025. It demonstrated Pakistan’s resolve and military capability to challenge a larger adversary and impose costs. During the operation 26 military targets were selected and engaged in a highly coordinated retaliation in IOJ&K and mainland India. Pakistan targeted Air Force and Aviation bases, BrahMos storage facilities, S-400 battery system at Adampur & Bhuj, military logistics and support sites, and military command headquarters. Pakistan deliberately selected military targets to avoid civilian’s casualties and to showcase its intent to uphold international norms in the face of provocations. Moreover, its response was precise, proportionate, and remarkably restrained. This planning allowed Pakistan to re-establish deterrence, demonstrate its military capabilities, uphold its credibilit,y, and garner diplomatic support.
In order to counter Indian diplomatic initiative Pakistan’s Political, diplomatic, and military leadership led a coordinated and a unified approach to counter Indian narrative. Diplomatic community based in different parts of the world represented Pakistan’s position at different regional and multi-lateral forums with clarity, consistency, and conviction. Pakistan’s timely and effective briefings to the Islamabad based foreign envoys, highlighting historical precedents of false-flag operations planned and executed by New-Delhi for domestic political gains, its readiness to conduct a transparent, credible, and impartial investigation to uncover the facts, and exposing Indian security and intelligence lapses really reinforced its stance and showcased it as a responsible international actor.
Furthermore, Pakistan’s pro-active diplomatic role, its position as a non-permanent member of the UNSC, and diplomatic backing from China played a key role to debunk India’s attempts to internationalize its claims. We can infer that Modi may have achieved certain political objectives at the domestic level but it failed to persuade the international community against Pakistan.
China once again stood as a time-tested partner of Pakistan. It backed Pakistan’s call for an impartial investigation and reinforced its long-standing strategic partnership with Islamabad
The response of the global community post Pahalgam incident revealed a clear reluctance to endorse’ New-Delhi’s narrative. The states around the world opted for neutrality, tried to encourage both sides for de-escalation, and made efforts for a careful balancing of strategic interests. The US as a close partner of India reiterated its support for counterterrorism efforts by India but it avoided putting the blame on Pakistan. It reflected that President Trump wants to preserve his image as a global mediator. Similarly, the two other important traditional partners of India, (France&Russia) refrained from endorsing India’s claim that Pakistan was responsible for the Pahalgam attack.
The UK also pursued a balanced diplomatic approach and encouraged restraint. It depicted that it wants to maintain constructive ties with both Pakistan and India. China once again stood as a time-tested partner of Pakistan. It backed Pakistan’s call for an impartial investigation and reinforced its long-standing strategic partnership with Islamabad. Meanwhile, regional and Muslim-majority states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the UAE played a key diplomatic role in defusing tensions. Moreover, two states (Turkiye and Azerbaijan) emerged as reliable crisis-time partners. These all responses illustrate that India did not succeed to secure unequivocal backing for its narrative from regional and extra-regional powers.
India’s failure to achieve the diplomatic validation it sought despite aggressive narrative is indeed a diplomatic win for Pakistan. Moreover, Islamabad also denied India the military and diplomatic upper hand and exposed New-Delhi’s “sham narrative of victimhood”. The pro-active diplomatic engagement, use of credible evidence in media outreach, and calibrated military response undermined India’s broader strategic goals. Moreover, the diplomatic role played by Trump resulted in a ceasefire announced by him. Overall; the recent military conflict offered a number of important lessons. First, Pakistan was not diplomatically isolated as expected by New-Delhi. In fact, many regional and extra-regional powers aligned with Pakistan’s position.
Pakistan’s firm military response, diplomatic and media engagement demonstrated that it won’t bow down to Indian regional hegemony
Second, India is viewed and prepared by the US as a strategic counter-weight to China. However, it has shown poor military performance against Pakistan. It raises serious questions about its capabilities and credibility of its role as a so-called net-security provider expected by its Western partners. Third, Pakistan’s firm military response, diplomatic and media engagement demonstrated that it won’t bow down to Indian regional hegemony. It will defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity at all cost. Fourth, India showed discomfort when President Trump mentioned Kashmir. Now, they are downplaying the US diplomatic role in an attempt to maintain the façade of strategic autonomy and independent decision-making. Sixth, India’s efforts to peddle a false narrative through domestic media channels failed to resonate internationally. Their inability to present credible evidence to global community and jingoistic behavior of its mainstream media during the military conflict undermined India’s credibility.
Pakistan’s measured and evidence based approach provided its perspective legitimacy at the global stage
On the other hand, Pakistan’s measured and evidence based approach provided its perspective legitimacy at the global stage. Sixth, Pakistan should consistently brief the international community on India’s disinformation campaigns and destabilizing diplomatic behavior post Pulwama incident in 2019 and again after the Pahalgam attack. Seventh, India should reflect deeply why many of its close partners in Asia and Europe chose to remain neutral. Eighth, Indian efforts against Pakistan brought reputational costs, a renewed global focus on Kashmir, and operational setbacks. These all are not in-line with whatever it wanted to achieve.
Regional stability can only be achieved through addressing core longstanding for disputes like Kashmir, respect for sovereignty, and credible diplomacy
This recent military conflict between the two South-Asian neighbors will have a long-term impact. It revealed that peace cannot be achieved through unilateral actions, coercion, and false narratives. Regional stability can only be achieved through addressing core longstanding for disputes like Kashmir, respect for sovereignty, and credible diplomacy. Additionally, the international community should play an active and balanced role. The purpose should be to prevent miscalculations and promote a framework for enduring peace in South-Asia.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
