Context

• The recent terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, has once again laid bare the cracks in the international community’s approach to combating terrorism.
• While many nations were quick to condemn the violence, their calls for restraint from both India and Pakistan reflect a troubling trend: the erosion of global solidarity in confronting terror, particularly when it emanates from Pakistan and targets India.
• Amid these developments, it is important to explore the implications of the Pahalgam attack, the global community’s fragmented response, the double standards India faces, and the strategic path India must chart in response.

The Shattered Illusion of a Unified Anti-Terror Front

• In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, global powers issued statements that were, at best, diplomatically cautious and, at worst, morally ambiguous.
• Calls from the United States, the European Union, and Russia for restraint from both sides effectively equated the victim (India) with the perpetrator (Pakistan), diluting the moral clarity necessary for a resolute stand against terrorism.
• This marks a stark departure from the early 2000s, when the global community, galvanised by the 9/11 attacks, stood united in a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to terrorism.
• The erosion of this collective will is partly due to shifting global priorities.
• With ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and broader West Asia, the appetite for new conflicts, particularly in Asia, is limited.
• In this climate, India’s security concerns are often subordinated to broader fears of regional escalation, especially given Pakistan’s use of its nuclear status as a deterrent against decisive international action.

The Return of My Terrorist vs. Your Terrorist

• The global fight against terrorism has reverted to a selective, interest-based approach.
• Western nations focus on right-wing extremism or REMVE (racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism), while the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) often turns a blind eye to Islamist terrorism, citing Islamophobia.
• Canada’s refusal to act against anti-India elements operating from its soil, under the guise of free expression, is emblematic of this hypocrisy.
• Similarly, China’s consistent use of its veto power in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to shield Pakistan-backed terrorists underlines how geopolitics trumps principle.
• This trend is not limited to India.
• Africa, too, is facing a surge in terrorist activity, especially in the Sahel region.
• However, the international response remains muted, with terrorism in Africa and Asia increasingly regarded as someone else’s problem.

The Double Standards Faced by India

• Solidarity but Conditional Sympathy
  • India’s experience with cross-border terrorism, primarily from Pakistan, is met not with solidarity but with conditional sympathy and cautionary warnings.
  • The narrative of regional stability is often invoked to pressure India into restraint, even when its citizens are the victims.
  • Ironically, the same Western powers that support Ukraine’s resistance against nuclear-armed Russia are hesitant to endorse India’s right to defend itself from a nuclear-armed Pakistan.
• Little Acknowledgment of Hinduphobia
  • The Pahalgam attack itself, in which Hindus were allegedly targeted based on religion, reveals another dimension of global apathy.
  • While Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and Christianophobia are widely and rightly condemned, acts of Hinduphobia, such as this attack, receive little to no acknowledgment.
  • This silence is compounded by incidents such as U.S. presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy being vilified for his Hindu faith, highlighting the marginalisation of non-Abrahamic religions in global discourses on religious freedom.
  • One notable exception came from U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who explicitly recognised the religious nature of the Pahalgam attack, describing it as a horrific Islamist terrorist attack.
  • Her stance stands in contrast to the broader diplomatic hedging seen elsewhere.

Strategic Implications and the Path Forward

• Despite its diplomatic isolation in this context, India is not without leverage.
• It has the opportunity, and arguably the necessity, to recalibrate its strategy. Domestically, this involves maintaining vigilance and strengthening counter-terror mechanisms.
• Internationally, India must double down on its campaign against religiophobia, especially targeting the blind spots regarding non-Abrahamic faiths.
• India’s geopolitical strategy must also evolve.
• Its decision to pause the Indus Waters Treaty and challenge Pakistan’s narrative at the UNSC are signs of a more assertive posture.
• While Pakistan's efforts to internationalise the Kashmir issue through emergency sessions of the UNSC have largely failed, India's ability to sustain international support hinges on diplomatic dexterity and the strategic use of its global partnerships.
• Furthermore, India should leverage its relationships with key Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which are pursuing internal reforms and could play a role in influencing Pakistan’s behaviour.
• India’s multi-alignment policy must translate into tangible diplomatic dividends, particularly in the realm of counterterrorism.

Conclusion

• The Pahalgam terror attack is not just an isolated act of violence; it is a stark reminder of the international community’s selective moralism and India’s growing isolation in the global fight against terrorism.
• As collective resolve against terror diminishes, India must prepare to go it alone, diplomatically, strategically, and ideologically.
• By asserting its geopolitical autonomy and refusing to be constrained by international double standards, India can shape a more secure future for itself, while also highlighting the urgent need for a renewed, truly global consensus on combating terrorism in all its forms.