Context

• History often cautions against blaming the bearer of bad news, a lesson as old as Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.
• Yet in contemporary India, following the four-day military engagement termed Operation Sindoor (May 7–10, 2025), Indian diplomats, the state’s messengers, have found themselves criticised not for the content of their message but for its perceived diplomatic ineffectiveness.
• Therefore, it is important to evaluate the criticisms levelled at Indian diplomacy post-Operation Sindoor, exploring the deeper geopolitical and perceptual shifts affecting India’s international standing

Critical Appraisal of India’s Diplomatic Messaging

• Eroding International Support
  • Despite a legacy of global solidarity following similar events in 2008 (Mumbai attacks), 2016 (Uri), and 2019 (Pulwama), the international response to India’s recent strikes was relatively muted.
  • While condolences for the Pahalgam attack were abundant, India did not receive the same breadth of unequivocal endorsement, particularly from neighbouring South Asian states.
  • In contrast, Pakistan garnered support from countries like China, Türkiye, Malaysia, and organisations such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
  • This asymmetry is perceived as a diplomatic failure to galvanise regional and global consensus against terrorism, especially in light of India’s past successes.
• Diplomatic Gains for Pakistan
  • Pakistan’s ability to manipulate multilateral forums, even as a country widely known to support terrorist proxies, underscores New Delhi’s frustration.
  • In April, Islamabad successfully altered the UNSC resolution on the Pahalgam attack to remove references to The Resistance Front (TRF).
  • More symbolic victories followed: Pakistan secured leadership roles in key UNSC counter-terror bodies, accessed international loans despite Indian objections, and maintained engagement with the U.S., exemplified by the White House hosting General Asim Munir.
  • These developments not only signify Pakistan’s persistent diplomatic resilience but also raise questions about the traction of India's global narrative.
• The United States’ Hyphenated Narrative
  • Perhaps most disconcerting for India has been the repeated equivalence drawn between India and Pakistan by U.S. President Donald Trump.
  • His statements have suggested a moral parity between the two nations, offering unsolicited mediation on Kashmir and avoiding strong condemnations of terrorism.
  • Such remarks, even in the wake of ceasefire negotiations and in close proximity to engagements with both Modi and Munir, reveal a fundamental dissonance in strategic alignment between New Delhi and Washington.

The Problem of the Message, Not the Messenger

• As the Shakespearean messenger in Antony and Cleopatra asserted, "I that do bring the news made not the match."
• Likewise, Indian diplomats can only convey what the government chooses to communicate.
• In this light, criticism must also be directed at the content and tone of India’s post-Sindoor messaging.
• Modi’s New Normal Doctrine
  • The government’s evolving military doctrine, articulated as a New Normal, has alarmed some international observers. This doctrine comprises three key assertions:
    • Terror equals war: This formulation lowers the threshold for military retaliation, transferring control over escalation to individual terror actors.
    • Rejection of nuclear blackmail: While asserting strategic autonomy, it introduces a rhetoric of nuclear brinkmanship into the subcontinent's discourse.
    • No distinction between state and non-state actors: This blurs conventional boundaries in conflict, suggesting that future attacks may provoke disproportionate responses.
  • While these positions may signal strength domestically, they risk being interpreted internationally as destabilising postures, particularly in a geopolitical climate already sensitive to territorial aggression.
• Shifting Global Attitudes Post-2020
  • Recent global events, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to Israel’s war in Gaza, have led to increased scrutiny of military responses justified under the banner of counter-terrorism or self-defence.
  • India’s failure to condemn Russia’s actions, increased oil trade with Moscow, and silence on Gaza have caused reputational shifts, particularly in Europe and the Global South.
  • As a result, India’s appeals for support in its conflict with Pakistan appear to some as selectively consistent, undermining its moral credibility.

Image, Democracy, and the Credibility Gap

• Beyond policy and rhetoric, India’s image under the Modi government has also undergone transformation, posing challenges for diplomatic engagement.
• International concerns regarding India’s democratic backsliding have grown louder.
• Controversial legislative changes like the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the abrogation of Article 370, internet blackouts, arrests of dissenters, and credible allegations of extraterritorial killings linked to Indian agents have all contributed to a narrative of shrinking democratic space.
• During their Operation Sindoor outreach, Indian diplomats were forced to address not just terrorism, but also human rights and civil liberties.
• Such issues undercut India’s key comparative advantage over Pakistan: its status as the world's largest democracy, with a pluralistic, secular ethos.
• When India appears to blur that distinction, its diplomatic leverage weakens correspondingly.

The Way Forward: Reimagining India’s Diplomatic Playbook

• To restore its diplomatic edge, New Delhi must rethink the substance and tone of its communication.
• This means reinforcing its image as a democratic, stable, and constructive global actor.
• It means balancing strategic autonomy with principled diplomacy.
• And it means remembering that in the arena of international relations, power without perception is often power squandered.

Conclusion:

• India’s right to defend itself from cross-border terrorism is indisputable, and its frustration at international equivocation is understandable.
• However, effective diplomacy requires more than strategic assertion, it demands narrative clarity, moral consistency, and alignment with global values.
• The current criticisms do not reflect failures of India’s diplomats per se, but of a broader misalignment between India’s actions, messages, and the world’s expectations.