Editorial 1:Blame not the messenger in India’s diplomacy

Context

India's strong stand against terrorism and Pakistan will gain more support if it highlights its strengths—being a secular, stable, and law-abiding democracy.

Introduction

History and literature are full of examples warning against blaming the messenger for delivering bad news. In Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen attacks a messenger and threatens to have him tortured for telling her that Mark Antony has married someone else. The messenger replies, “I didn’t arrange the marriage, I only brought the news,” before quickly leaving. In a similar way, over the past two months, India’s diplomats—its ‘diplomatic messengers’—have faced unusual criticism. But they are not being blamed for the message itself. Instead, they are being criticised for not communicating clearly enough the message that New Delhi tried to send after Operation Sindoor (May 7–10, 2025).

Criticism of Indian diplomacy

Public criticism of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and its missions abroad has focused on three main issues:

1. Lack of Strong International Support for India

• India received condolences and condemnations after the Pahalgam terror attack, but not clear support for retaliatory action on Pakistan.
• Comparisons have been made to earlier stronger support:

• In contrast, this time Pakistan gained support from-
  • China
  • Turkiye
  • Azerbaijan
  • Malaysia
  • Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

2. Pakistan’s Recent Diplomatic Gains

• Despite global understanding of Pakistan’s link to terrorism, it achieved several diplomatic wins:

• Meanwhile, India is trying to -
  • Push TRF designation at UNSC
  • Move Pakistan back to FATF greylist

3. U.S. President Trump’s Mixed Signals

• President Donald Trump has repeatedly -
  • Linked India and Pakistan in his statements post-ceasefire (May 10)
  • Suggested mediation on Kashmir
  • Not condemned terrorism in any recent statement
• His latest comments came --
  • Just after a call with PM Modi
  • Just before meeting Gen. Munir
  • Seen as most blatant effort to undermine India’s narrative

India’s Diplomatic Push Post-Operation Sindoor

• India has launched a large diplomatic campaign, unlike in 2016 or 2019-
  • MPs and diplomats sent to 32 countries
  • Longest effort in the United States (6 days)
  • PM Modi to meet BRICS leaders post-G7
  • EAM Jaishankar to attend Quad meet after European visits

• These efforts show that India acknowledges the gap in diplomatic impact and is working to strengthen its messaging.

Who Crafts the Message?

• Like in Shakespeare’s story, India’s diplomats deliver, but do not decide, the message.
• The government must reassess-
  • What message it is sending
  • How geopolitical narratives are shifting
  • How India is perceived globally
• A more realistic diplomatic strategy is needed to align India’s goals with international responses, especially on Pakistan and terrorism.

Mr. Modi’s “New Normal” and Global Reactions

• India’s new diplomatic doctrine, described as the “New Normal”, has drawn concern internationally due to its potentially escalatory tone.
• Three-Pronged Doctrine is -

1. "Any act of terror is an act of war"
   • Seen as lowering the threshold for military conflict.
   • Places the trigger for war in the hands of any terrorist, even without state backing.
2. "India will not bow to nuclear blackmail"
   • Although not new, this idea had been left unstated publicly.
   • Its articulation now raises the spectre of nuclear risk in the region.
3. "No distinction between state and non-state actors"
   • Sends an escalatory signal that future terror attacks could lead to full-scale conflict, not just limited operations like Operation Sindoor.
4. Despite not being asked for proof of Pakistan’s role in the Pahalgam attack, many countries question why the attackers remain untraced.

Changing Global Context and Its Impact on India’s Image

Recent global events have changed how nations view India’s assertive posture:

• Statements about retaking Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) by force raise alarm, especially given:
  • Ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, West Asia, and the South China Sea.
  • Heightened sensitivity to territorial aggression worldwide.
• After Israel’s large-scale retaliation post-October 2023 attacks, major powers are reluctant to endorse retribution-based policies.

India’s Stand on Global Conflicts: Mixed Receptions

• India’s positions have eroded its credibility among some allies who expect consistent adherence to international norms.

Diplomatic Dilemma and Messaging Contradictions

• PM Modi reportedly told President Trump that terrorism from Pakistan is “not proxy war, but war itself.”
• However, India’s diplomats now face a messaging challenge:
  • India promotes dialogue and diplomacy elsewhere, including Ukraine, yet excludes Pakistan from the same.
  • Repeated use of the phrase “this is not an era of war” elsewhere now appears inconsistent.

The Need for Strategic Communication Reset

• Despite the double standards in international expectations, India must:
  • Reassess the substance and tone of its diplomatic messaging.
  • Understand the shifts in global geopolitical narratives.
  • Frame its actions in a way that enhances credibility and retains support without compromising national security interests.

Democracy in decline

• There is a growing need to reflect on how the Modi government’s global image has changed since 2019, leading to diplomatic challenges.
• Several domestic developments have drawn international scrutiny, including:
  • The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
  • The abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir.
  • Internet shutdowns and summary arrests in various regions.
  • Allegations of Indian involvement in transnational assassinations in countries like the United States and Canada.
• These developments have raised:
  • Concerns about the decline of democracy in India.
  • Questions about the treatment of minorities and civil liberties.
• During diplomatic outreach post-Operation Sindoor, Indian delegations had to address these concerns while trying to build support internationally.
• The situation underscores the importance of:
  • Addressing perception gaps.
  • Ensuring that domestic policy actions do not undermine India’s credibility abroad.

Conclusion

India's right to defend itself against Pakistan-backed terrorism is unquestionable. However, its global message on terror gains strength when backed by India's identity as a secular, stable, pluralistic democracy that upholds the rule of lawand stands as a rising economic power—in sharp contrast to Pakistan.