From May 23 onwards, India is sending eight teams of politicians to major countries worldwide. Each team has at least five MPs from various political parties. Senior diplomats and experts will join them. This effort comes after Operation Sindoor. The ostensible goal is to show India's united stand against terrorism and gain international support. It is also indicative of the failure of India’s diplomacy to match the extraordinary achievement of India’s armed forces in executing Operation Sindoor.
It was a meticulously planned military operation targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir. Described as a “precise and non-escalatory” strike, the operation aimed to neutralise terror camps linked to groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and Hizbul Mujahideen. The operation was a military success. It showcased India’s advanced non-contact warfare capabilities. However, the international response exposed faultlines in its foreign policy. None of its neighbours vocally supported Operation Sindoor. Key global players like the European Union, QUAD members, the USA, UK, Arab countries, and even traditional allies like Russia either sided with Pakistan or remained neutral. So, has India’s military success alienated its friends? What are the reasons behind their neutral or pro-Pakistan stances? And, what are the implications for India’s foreign policy?
International Reactions to Operation Sindoor
The European Union’s response to Operation Sindoor reflects a delicate balance between condemning terrorism and urging de-escalation. The EU and its 27 member states issued a statement condemning the Pahalgam attack, asserting that “every state has the duty and the right lawfully to protect its citizens from acts of terror.” However, it also expressed “great concern” over escalating tensions and called for both India and Pakistan to “exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions and desist from further attacks to safeguard civilian lives.” This position, while acknowledging India’s right to self-defence, implicitly criticises the scale of its military response. The EU’s cautious stance likely stems from its desire for stability in South Asia, a region critical for global trade and energy routes. Its preference for dialogue, and not war, in a nuclear flashpoint like India-Pakistan is quite apparent.
The QUAD (comprising the USA, Japan, Australia, and India) has been restrained in its response. Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi expressed “deep concern” that Operation Sindoor could escalate into a “full-scale military conflict”. He urged both nations to stabilise the situation through dialogue. Australia has remained largely silent. The QUAD’s primary focus is countering China’s Indo-Pacific influence. A regional conflict involving India risks diverting attention from this strategic goal. The lack of vocal support from QUAD partners suggests that India’s military actions, while tactically successful, may not align with the alliance’s broader objectives of maintaining regional stability and avoiding entanglement in India-Pakistan tensions.
The United States has adopted a dual approach. It expressed solidarity with India’s right to combat terrorism while urging restraint. The US State Department spokesperson, Morgan Bruce, emphasised the need for dialogue. India’s proactive diplomacy, with National Security Advisor Ajit Doval briefing his US counterpart, ensured that Washington was informed of the operation’s non-escalatory intent. However, the USA’s cautious stance reflects its strategic interests in Pakistan, including its role in stabilising Afghanistan. Obviously, the United States prefers de-escalation over outright support for India’s actions.
The UK’s response has been mixed. Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated, “No nation should have to accept terrorist attacks being launched against it from land controlled by another country. India is justified in striking terrorist infrastructure.” Similarly, Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel endorsed India’s “proportionate steps” to dismantle terror networks. However, the official UK position, articulated by Foreign Minister David Lammy, urged both nations to “show restraint and engage in dialogue.”
Arab nations, particularly the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, have played a mediating role rather than taking sides. The UAE’s Foreign Minister, Abdullah bin Zayed, called for diplomacy and dialogue as the means to resolve the crises. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry expressed “deep concern” and talked of good neighbourliness and diplomatic solutions. Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Adel al-Jubeir, visited Pakistan to calm tensions. These responses are driven by the Gulf countries’ economic and strategic interests in both India and Pakistan. For instance, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have significant trade and investment ties with India. Pakistan’s large expatriate workforce in the Gulf and its role in regional security, especially countering Iran’s influence, make neutrality a pragmatic choice.
India’s neighbours, including Bangladesh, Nepal, and Afghanistan, have either remained silent or cautiously supported India without endorsing Operation Sindoor outright. Bangladesh expressed concerns over cross-border militancy, but stopped short of endorsing the strikes. Nepal’s Chief Ministers congratulated Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the operation’s success, but this was limited to border states and not a national stance. There seems to be a regional hesitancy to align with India’s military approach. This reluctance may stem from fears of being drawn into the India-Pakistan conflict. There could be domestic political pressures, as seen in Bangladesh’s balancing act.
Pakistan’s narrative, amplified by its military and foreign ministry, portrays India’s strikes as an “unprovoked violation” of sovereignty. It claimed civilian casualties and damage to non-military targets like mosques. Pakistan’s retaliation, including drone and missile attacks on Indian military targets, was framed as a defensive response. Turkey has strongly backed Pakistan. It has described India’s actions as risking an “all-out war.” The global sympathy for Pakistan, particularly from Islamic nations, is partly due to its claims of civilian losses and the targeting of sites like the Bilal Mosque in Muzaffarabad. This narrative challenges India’s assertion of precision strikes and fuels calls for de-escalation.
Why the Neutral or Pro-Pakistan Stance?
The India-Pakistan conflict is one of the world’s most dangerous nuclear flashpoints. The United Nations, European Union, and QUAD members like Japan have emphasised restraint to prevent escalation into a broader conflict. The UN Secretary-General’s statement that “the world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan” underscores this fear.
India’s unilateral strikes are justified as self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But they also raised concerns about violating Pakistan’s sovereignty. China and Turkey have criticised India’s actions as escalatory. China called for both sides to “refrain from actions that may further complicate the situation.”
The USA, Arab countries, and even Russia have strategic interests in Pakistan. The United States relies on Pakistan for counterterrorism cooperation. Gulf nations benefit from Pakistan’s workforce and military ties. Russia’s “warm relations” with both nations and its call for restraint reflect its balancing act.
The long history of India-Pakistan conflicts has led to global fatigue. Many nations prefer neutrality to avoid entanglement in a recurring cycle of violence.
India’s proactive diplomacy, including briefing 70 nations on Operation Sindoor’s success, demonstrates confidence but may have been perceived as aggressive. Some suggest that India’s misreading of global political dynamics and reliance on US mediation have weakened its regional standing.
Recalibrating India’s Foreign Policy
Operation Sindoor has revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of India’s foreign policy. The operation showed India's military is modern and capable of carrying out advanced, contactless strikes. But it also exposed some serious diplomatic challenges.
India’s neighbours, like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, did not openly support the operation. This shows that the “Neighbourhood First” policy has not built strong regional unity in times of crisis. India may now try to improve its economic and security ties with these countries to reduce Pakistan’s influence in the region.
The QUAD, comprising India US, Japan and Australia, did not comment on Operation Sindoor. This highlights that the group is more focused on China, not India-Pakistan tensions. India may need to rethink what it expects from the QUAD and look at other platforms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to deal with regional security issues.
India described its strikes as measured and non-escalatory, which earned support from countries like Israel and Panama. But some global reactions were less positive. The European Union criticised India, and Turkey sided with Pakistan. This shows India needs to improve how it presents its actions to the world and respond effectively to Pakistan’s claims of civilian harm.
India now faces the challenge of sticking to its tough stance on terrorism while keeping global support, especially from Islamic nations and countries in the Global South. It needs to revisit the lessons from past operations. Uri Surgical Strikes of 2016 were also precise but drew less global concern. This was likely because India had prepared diplomatically. Like Sindoor, the Balakot Airstrike of 2019 targeted terrorist camps in Pakistan. Global response was also limited due to fears of escalation. But India handled the aftermath through strong diplomacy. This shows that India can learn from Balakot to better manage global reactions to Operation Sindoor. The neutral response from most nations shows that India must broaden its diplomatic efforts to stay flexible and independent.
strike, India diplomacy failure, India Operation Sindoor, Indian military strike, India Pakistan conflict, global reaction Operation Sindoor, India diplomacy failure, India foreign policy 2025, Operation Sindoor explained, Jaish-e-Mohammed strike, Lashkar-e-Taiba camps, India Pakistan tensions, QUAD response India, EU response Sindoor, US reaction Operation Sindoor, Arab nations on India strike, India military success, India global isolation, India strikes PoJK, Ajit Doval diplomacy, India vs Pakistan 2025, Indian air force operation, India’s global image, India defence policy, terrorism in South Asia, geopolitics India 2025, India international relations, India neighbours silence, India global support, strategic diplomacy India
No comments:
Post a Comment