NEW DELHI: In the wake of the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir—an assault believed to have been orchestrated by Pakistanbased militant groups— India was reminded, yet again, that international solidarity is often conditional, selective, and shaped by national interests, not moral clarity.
The attack, which targeted unarmed civilians, drew formal condemnations from many capitals. Yet almost all of these statements were carefully worded, neutral in tone, and stopped well short of identifying Pakistan as the source of the threat. Only two countries—Israel and Afghanistan—named Pakistan directly.
Others simply echoed Islamabad’s familiar refrain: “Provide proof.” This response, or lack thereof, stands in sharp contrast to how the world reacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. Just two days later, on September 13, U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, had identified Al-Qaeda as responsible. On September 20, President George W. Bush publicly confirmed that conclusion in an address to Congress. By October 7—just 26 days after the attacks—the United States launched military operations in Afghanistan targeting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime that harbored them. No one demanded proof. No one asked for restraint.
India’s experience could not be more different. Despite repeated cross-border attacks traced to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba—whose leadership continues to operate openly in Pakistan— New Delhi has consistently struggled to generate a decisive international consensus against Islamabad’s role in promoting terrorism. This episode has further exposed the limits of India’s diplomatic capital, even among longtime partners.
The United States, often described as a strategic ally, declined to name Pakistan and soon afterward announced a deepening of trade ties with Islamabad. Not long after, the International Monetary Fund, where Washington’s influence is substantial, approved a $760 million loan package for Pakistan. China’s stance was unsurprising. As Pakistan’s long-standing ally, Beijing reiterated its support for Islamabad.
What was more telling was the tepid response from Russia. When war broke out in Ukraine, Moscow had hoped for India’s vocal support. India chose neutrality. Now, when India sought solidarity, Russia responded with a formal but muted statement. In diplomacy, it seems, reciprocity matters more than rhetoric. India has long championed the ideal of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”—the world is one family.
But global politics today is governed less by idealism and more by strategic interest. The recent events underscore that while India aspires to be a moral power, most countries operate with a transactional mindset. Even friends hesitate to take sides when their own stakes are unclear or compromised. The lesson for New Delhi is not to abandon its values, but to temper them with realism.
As global alignments grow more fluid, India may need to reconsider whether it should invest in building a broad coalition of support—or focus on cultivating a smaller set of dependable allies who are willing to stand with it when it counts.