One of the most notable aspects of the episode was the absence of India’s Foreign Minister S Jaishankar from the public eye. In recent years, Jaishankar has made a reputation for being a sharp, articulate representative of Indian foreign policy on international platforms. Yet during this critical moment, there was little engagement or explanation from the country’s top diplomat. He remained mute, watching his carefully scripted ‘Vishwaguru’ image unravel in real time. The silence left space for confusion both within India and abroad which in turn allowed speculation to overshadow substance.
It was also unusual for the government to ask Congress MP Shashi Tharoor to lead a mission to diplomatically connect with foreign governments. While Tharoor is a respected voice internationally, his inclusion signaled a lack of coordination within India’s own foreign policy setup. It also raised questions about the government’s strategy, making us wonder if it’s a show of strength or of limited options.
Meanwhile, the global response did not align with India’s expectations. The US, the UK, EU and Russia all urged Pakistan and India to stop the escalation, though none accepted India’s explanations completely. The only country to offer explicit support was Israel, which has significant defence trade relations with India, a fact that suggests the gesture was grounded more in bilateral interests than in shared diplomatic objectives.
Yet, the foreign office in Pakistan stayed with traditional diplomacy. It chose to brief on strategy and lobby lawmakers in private, rather than use harsh statements in public. Thanks to this process, China, Turkey, Azerbaijan and the OIC all issued direct and strong messages of support to Islamabad. While Pakistan’s reaction was seen coming, how united it was made a difference over the messy approach taken by India this time.
India, on the other hand, leaned heavily on media optics. It aired videos, staged briefings and tried to ‘Bajrang Dal’ its way through diplomacy. The world requested real facts, instead of blinding lights and sound. As everyone was hoping for a de-escalation and proof of Pakistan’s actions, India’s stance did not achieve the same attention as it had hoped.
India’s diplomatic disaster wasn’t an accident. It was the result of BJP-made, Jaishankar-signed, Tharoor-patched humiliation. If strategy is ignored in favour of displays, and diplomatic work is replaced by partisan shows, the best images cannot hold up to pressure.
India’s relative isolation during the crisis reflects a broader shift in its diplomatic engagements. For several years now, some of India’s regional ties, mainly with Muslim-majority countries, have been put under strain. Differences with Iran, Turkey, Bangladesh and Nepal have resulted in a shrinking ability to talk things out, frequently made worse by political statements made inside national boundaries.
The episode highlights important points for us. To practice diplomacy, one must be reliable, have strong institutions and the aptitude to work with people from all sides in politics. In moments of crisis, it is not just military capability that matters but also the credibility of a country’s narrative, the clarity of its voice and the reliability of its diplomats.
The post-Pahalgam moment could serve as a wake-up call. India has enough experience, personnel and stature to be a helpful player in regional and global situations. But to be so effective, it will need to separate foreign policy from political theatrics and ensure that its international engagements are guided by strategy, not improvisation.