Context

• The enduring conflict between India and Pakistan, particularly over Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), has once again come to the forefront following Operation Sindoor.
• This development not only underlines the continuing hostility between the two nations but also reveals the deep structural inadequacies of both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in addressing such entrenched disputes.
• Over the decades, a dense web of historical, geopolitical, and ideological factors has complicated the issue to the point where traditional diplomatic mechanisms, be it through the United Nations or bilateral negotiations, have largely failed to yield any substantive resolution.

Historical Entanglements and Diplomatic Gridlock between India and Pakistan

• The India-Pakistan conflict has been shaped heavily by the geopolitical dynamics following the Second World War and the Cold War.
• These global developments developed the formation of rigid ideological positions and institutional frameworks that now limit diplomatic manoeuvrability.
• For instance, the UN’s cartographic representations and documentation, while appearing neutral, often blur the realities on the ground.
• UN maps label the Line of Control with caveats such as, the final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon, thereby preventing any definitive international recognition of India's sovereignty over the region.
• Consequently, when Indian envoys assert that J&K is an integral part of India, they often encounter diplomatic reluctance or non-committal responses from countries relying on these ambiguous UN representations.
• Furthermore, the Simla Agreement, while envisioning bilateral solutions, has not translated into actionable outcomes due to Pakistan’s persistent internationalisation of the Kashmir issue.
• Moreover, its unwavering position that Kashmir remains the core issue. These conflicting interpretations have left bilateral diplomacy effectively stalled.

The Terrorism Conundrum

• India’s efforts to foreground terrorism as a central concern in its international engagements have also encountered significant roadblocks.
• Although India introduced a draft for a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism over three decades ago in the United Nations General Assembly, it was widely dismissed, viewed by many as an anti-Pakistan initiative.
• One of the core impediments has been the lack of a universally accepted definition of terrorism, compounded by the controversial adage that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
• India’s historical support for armed liberation movements in Africa and Sri Lanka has been cited as evidence of this ambiguity, thereby weakening its position in seeking international legal consensus.
• Despite the global outrage following the 9/11 attacks, which temporarily shifted global attention toward the menace of terrorism, especially in West and South Asia, the eventual drift of the U.S. focus toward military solutions, particularly in Afghanistan diluted the momentum for a comprehensive legal framework.
• The fall of the Taliban was followed by a long-drawn conflict ending in U.S. withdrawal and the group's return to power, demonstrating the limited success of even large-scale military interventions.

The UN Security Council’s Inconclusive Role and the Problem of Hyphenation and Historical Missteps

• The UN Security Council’s Inconclusive Role
  • The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has adopted multiple resolutions aimed at combating terrorism, creating obligations for member-states to implement preventative measures.
  • However, these efforts have lacked clarity and enforcement.
  • The Counter-Terrorism Committee, though active, remains ambiguous on contentious matters such as the legitimacy of a state treating a terrorist attack as an act of war, a doctrine India has pushed to justify surgical strikes across the Line of Control.
  • India’s military restraint, despite provocations, and adherence to ceasefire norms along the LoC add another layer of complexity.
  • While these actions underscore India’s commitment to responsible conduct, they paradoxically weaken its justification for pre-emptive strikes under international humanitarian law.
  • As such, India's attempts to secure global endorsement for its counter-terrorism operations remain largely unfulfilled.
• The Problem of Hyphenation and Historical Missteps
  • India’s initial recourse to the UN in 1947, in response to Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir, ironically laid the foundation for the diplomatic quagmire that followed.
  • The issue was taken up under Article VI of the UN Charter, dealing with pacific settlement of disputes, rather than under Article VII, which deals with acts of aggression.
  • This misstep led to the introduction of extraneous elements such as self-determination, complicating what India had viewed as a straightforward case of territorial violation.
  • This laid the groundwork for the persistent hyphenation of India and Pakistan in international discourse, including in the nuclear context.
  • While India has maintained a No First Use nuclear doctrine, Pakistan has continually threatened to escalate its conventional capabilities, thereby increasing regional instability.
  • Any discussions on Kashmir are inevitably coloured by this backdrop, and the international community often opts for a cautious neutrality.

The Way Ahead: Strategic Autonomy as the Only Viable Path

• Given these circumstances, India has adopted a firm stance: any future bilateral engagement with Pakistan will focus solely on terrorism and the status of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK).
• This position reflects a broader recognition that international mediation is no longer a viable avenue.
• Pakistan's relentless pursuit of internationalising the Kashmir issue, combined with the institutional inertia within the UN, renders multilateral diplomacy ineffective.
• India’s special envoy missions post-Operation Sindoor have likely reinforced this assessment.
• The structural limitations of international forums, combined with entrenched global narratives, have made it virtually impossible for India to untangle its position from decades-old UN resolutions and diplomatic double standards.
• Therefore, India’s path forward lies in pursuing strategic autonomy through measured military preparedness and defensive action.
• As long as Pakistan continues its strategy of a thousand cuts, a euphemism for low-intensity, proxy conflict, India must prioritise national security over international validation.

Conclusion

• The case of India and Pakistan, particularly regarding Kashmir, serves as a sobering example of the limitations of diplomacy when historical, ideological, and geopolitical interests converge.
• The role of international institutions like the UN, while ostensibly neutral, is often shaped by power politics and outdated paradigms.
• In such a context, India must focus on safeguarding its sovereignty through pragmatic self-reliance rather than placing hope in an international system that has repeatedly failed to deliver justice or clarity.