Masood Khalid Khan
India’s attempt to leverage the April 22 Pahalgam attack to isolate Pakistan on the international stage has ended in diplomatic frustration, with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) issuing a statement that carefully avoided endorsing New Delhi’s narrative. Despite an intensive lobbying effort aimed at securing global condemnation of Pakistan, the UNSC’s response underscored a broader reluctance among world powers to wade into South Asia’s turbulent politics without solid evidence.
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam incident, India moved swiftly to craft a narrative tying the attack to Pakistan, seeking not only condemnation of terrorism but also explicit references to Islamabad’s alleged involvement. However, when the UNSC released its statement, it made no mention of either Pakistan or Pahalgam. It instead reiterated general opposition to terrorism and extended condolences to the victims’ families. Importantly, it referred to the territory as “Jammu and Kashmir,” reflecting the region’s internationally recognized designation rather than affirming India’s territorial claims.
This seemingly small detail has major implications. For Pakistan, which worked in close coordination with China, the omission of Indian-preferred language represented a diplomatic victory. It sent a clear message that international bodies are not prepared to rubber-stamp India’s unilateral framing of events—especially in a region as politically sensitive and volatile as Kashmir.
India’s diplomatic disappointment is rooted in a failure to bridge the gap between domestic political messaging and international expectations. Back home, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and its nationalist media ecosystem aggressively pushed the idea that Pakistan was responsible for the violence. Yet this fervor could not substitute for evidence on the international stage. Despite India’s growing economic stature and strategic relevance, particularly to the West, global powers showed a preference for caution, facts, and balance over rhetorical alignment.
Please subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality podcasts:
The United States offered an early signal of this trend. While condemning terrorism and expressing sympathy, Washington pointedly called for restraint from all sides. There was no public endorsement of India’s accusations against Pakistan. Instead, the U.S. and other powers seemed more concerned with preventing a wider regional escalation than with joining a blame game without clear proof.
India’s strategy of pressure over persuasion may have backfired. Its failure to present compelling evidence linking Pakistan to the Pahalgam attack weakened its case, especially in forums like the UN, where procedural neutrality and diplomatic balance carry significant weight. The result was not just a lack of support but a quiet diplomatic rebuke—an implicit signal that India’s assertions did not meet the standard required for international consensus.
In contrast, Pakistan adopted a restrained and calculated approach. Islamabad denied involvement, rejected the accusations as politically motivated, and offered to cooperate with any impartial international investigation. This posture, grounded in legal principles and a call for transparency, resonated with a global community wary of being drawn into yet another South Asian crisis. With the Ukraine war ongoing and the Middle East in turmoil, few powers were willing to invest political capital in escalating a long-standing and unresolved conflict like Kashmir.
Pakistan’s diplomatic conduct in this episode reflects lessons learned from past crises, particularly after the 2019 Pulwama attack. At that time, India’s claims received a more sympathetic hearing internationally. But today’s geopolitical landscape is different, and so is Islamabad’s approach. Rather than reacting impulsively, Pakistani officials focused on shaping international perception through consistent engagement and measured language.
Still, Islamabad should not mistake this momentary success for a permanent shift. In diplomacy, victories are fragile and often short-lived. Pakistan’s challenge now is to sustain this momentum through continued adherence to international law, a clear stance against terrorism in all forms, and a commitment to conflict resolution through dialogue. Any deviation from this path could undermine the credibility it has gained.
For India, the setback is both diplomatic and political. On the one hand, it reveals the limits of influence even for a rising global player. On the other, it highlights the danger of elevating domestic political rhetoric to the level of foreign policy. The Modi government now faces a difficult balancing act. It must manage a domestic audience that was primed for confrontation while simultaneously recalibrating its international strategy to account for the reality that mere allegations—without substantiation—carry little weight in high-stakes diplomacy.
Moreover, this episode marks a contrast with past experiences. During previous crises, such as Pulwama, India was able to marshal significant international support. Today, that sympathy appears more conditional. Global actors are more cautious, less willing to be swayed by nationalist narratives, and more focused on stability. That shift underscores the importance of evidence-based diplomacy over performative posturing.
India’s ambition to be seen as a leading global power requires more than economic growth and military strength. It demands diplomatic maturity—an understanding that influence is built through consistency, credibility, and collaboration. In this instance, its aggressive campaign at the UNSC did not produce the desired results because it relied too heavily on emotion and too little on proof.
Moving forward, India will need to recalibrate. Internationally, it must return to the slower, more methodical art of persuasion—building consensus, sharing verifiable intelligence, and engaging allies with transparency. Domestically, it must navigate the political fallout of failing to deliver the strong international condemnation it had promised.
Ultimately, the UNSC’s neutral and restrained response reflects an enduring truth in international relations: loud claims do not outweigh the need for proof, especially in matters that risk regional or global destabilization. The Kashmir issue remains deeply complex and cannot be resolved through unilateral declarations or coercive diplomacy.
This episode should be a wake-up call for Indian policymakers. In a multipolar world where global powers are increasingly cautious about conflict zones, success depends on responsible statecraft, not just rhetoric. While India’s frustrations are understandable, its inability to shift international opinion through assertiveness alone highlights the need for a more nuanced, evidence-driven foreign policy.
In conclusion, the diplomatic fallout from the Pahalgam attack reinforces that international legitimacy is earned, not demanded. As both India and Pakistan continue to navigate a delicate regional balance, the global community’s preference for de-escalation, proof, and dialogue serves as a critical reminder of the rules that govern international engagement—even for emerging powers.
