- May 27, 2025
- Madhu Hebbar
Featured Articles
India’s Diplomatic Evolution: A Critical Lens on Kargil and Pahalgam
India’s trajectory from the 1999 Kargil War to the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack reflects a remarkable ascent in global influence, yet a critical evaluation of world scenarios reveals both triumphs and vulnerabilities. In 1999, India repelled Pakistani incursions with international backing, leveraging a unipolar world order. By 2025, the Pahalgam attack, killing 26 civilians, and India’s assertive Operation Sindoor highlight its autonomy in a multipolar landscape. Despite the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) anti-India resolutions on Kashmir, India has reshaped alliances, particularly with Gulf nations. However, its bold actions risk diplomatic overreach, underscoring the need for evidence-based strategies to sustain its elevated stature. Kargil 1999: Leveraging a Unipolar World In 1999, Pakistan’s incursion across the Line of Control (LoC) in Kargil provoked a military response from India, confined to its territory to avoid escalation. This restraint earned global praise, with The Hindu (May 5, 1999) noting: “India’s disciplined approach won diplomatic legitimacy.” The U.S., in a unipolar world, played a decisive role, with President Bill Clinton pressuring Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif to withdraw during a July 1999 meeting (Reuters, July 5, 1999). The G-8’s Cologne Summit statement urged Pakistan to respect the LoC, isolating it diplomatically. Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE offered Pakistan rhetorical support but refrained from challenging India, wary of nuclear risks and U.S. pressure. Turkey backed Pakistan’s Kashmir narrative but took no action. The OIC, despite anti-India resolutions since the 1970s, remained silent, unable to counter India’s Simla Agreement framework. Critically, India’s success relied on U.S. mediation, reflecting its limited influence as a sanctioned post-1998 nuclear state. The unipolar world amplified India’s moral clarity but exposed its dependence on Western powers. The OIC’s silence masked underlying biases, as Islamic nations’ muted support for Pakistan hinted at future challenges in countering Kashmir-focused narratives. India’s gains were significant but tethered to a U.S.-led order, limiting its agency. Pahalgam 2025: Navigating a Multipolar World On April 22, 2025, terrorists linked to Pakistan-based The Resistance Front, a Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy, killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam. India responded by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, expelling diplomats, and launching Operation Sindoor’s missile strikes on May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure (The Hindu, May 5, 2025). Over 20 nations, including the U.S., Israel, France, and Global South states like Brazil and Mauritius, condemned the attack, reflecting India’s expanded diplomatic reach (The Times of India, April 24, 2025). The U.S. adopted restraint, with Vice President J.D. Vance urging India to “avoid escalation,” a shift from 1999’s mediation (Reuters, April 23, 2025). The Guardian (April 28, 2025) noted this “underscores India’s emergence as a self-reliant power,” signalling confidence in its autonomy but caution over nuclear risks. The UN condemned terrorism but avoided naming Pakistan, as did China. The OIC issued two statements, calling India’s allegations “unfounded” and its strikes “unjustified,” demanding a UN-led investigation and Kashmir referendum. India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar rebuked the OIC as “Pakistan-driven” (The Hindu, May 5, 2025). Saudi Arabia, during Prime Minister Modi’s visit, condemned the attack, emphasising “zero tolerance for terrorism” (Reuters, April 23, 2025). The UAE and Afghanistan aligned with India, while Turkey sent naval and air support to Pakistan (The Guardian, April 28, 2025). Indonesia, Egypt, and Bahrain blocked Pakistan’s anti-India OIC motion (The Hindu, May 5, 2025), weakening its influence. India’s autonomy in 2025 reflects a multipolar world where it wields influence but faces challenges. The U.S.’s restraint, driven by domestic priorities and global distractions (Atlantic Council, May 6, 2025), highlights India’s ability to act independently but demands responsibility to avoid escalation. The OIC’s bias persists, but India’s sway over Gulf nations and moderate OIC members reveals Pakistan’s weakening influence. India’s unproven claims linking Pakistan to the attack and escalatory measures drew scrutiny, risking overreach, as Chatham House (May 8, 2025) warned: “India’s assertive diplomacy needs stronger evidence.” India’s Gains and Vulnerabilities India’s diplomatic evolution is evident: Economic Clout: India’s $4 trillion economy shifted Gulf loyalties. Saudi Arabia and the UAE prioritised $120 billion in trade, a “significant shift” from 1999 (Reuters, April 23, 2025). Strategic Alliances: India’s Quad membership and ties with France and Israel secured support. Emmanuel Macron called the attack “an assault on humanity” (The Hindu, April 24, 2025). Global South Leadership: Support from Brazil and Mauritius reflects India’s soft power (The Times of India, April 24, 2025). OIC Influence: India’s outreach to Indonesia and Egypt fractured OIC unity (The Hindu, May 5, 2025). Assertive Diplomacy: India’s rejection of OIC statements and hints at “trade reviews” with Gulf states signal confidence (The Times of India, April 24, 2025). Autonomy: The U.S.’s shift to restraint reflects India’s self-reliance (The Guardian, April 28, 2025). Yet, vulnerabilities remain. In 1999, India’s restraint aligned with a U.S.-led order. In 2025, its strikes risked alienating neutral actors, as NPR (April 24, 2025) noted: “India’s actions invite scrutiny in a multipolar world.” The OIC’s bias and Turkey’s support for Pakistan signal opposition. India’s economic leverage over Gulf states is potent but delicate (Al Jazeera, May 10, 2025). Critical Evaluation of World Scenarios In 1999, a unipolar world amplified India’s stance but exposed its reliance on U.S. power. In 2025, a multipolar world grants India agency but demands nuance. The U.S.’s restraint reflects India’s stature but also global fatigue with South Asian crises (Atlantic Council, May 6, 2025). China’s neutrality balances its Pakistan ties with India’s economic weight (Chatham House, May 8, 2025). The Global South’s support lacks 1999’s G-8 commitments. The OIC’s fractured response highlights India’s gains but warns of Pakistan’s influence. India’s nuclear status ensures caution, but its assertive posture risks missteps without evidence (The Guardian, April 28, 2025). India’s Path Forward India’s journey from Kargil to Pahalgam showcases its rise. Its economic clout and alliances have fractured OIC bias and swayed Gulf nations. Yet, its assertive response risked overreach. India must balance resolve with evidence-based diplomacy to counter Pakistan’s narrative and sustain its stature in a multipolar world. References The Hindu, May 5, 1999, “India’s disciplined approach won diplomatic legitimacy.” Reuters, July 5, 1999, “Clinton pressures Sharif to withdraw from Kargil.” House of Commons Library, May 16, 2025, “Kashmir: Renewed India-Pakistan tensions.” The Guardian, April 28, 2025, “‘Pakistan is the root of the problem’: Kashmir attack stokes anger in India.” Wikipedia, May 24, 2025, “2025 Pahalgam attack.” Chatham House, May 8, 2025, “Rising tensions resurface Pakistan’s credibility problem.” Reuters, April 23, 2025, “India downgrades ties with Pakistan after attack on Kashmir tourists.” NPR, April 24, 2025, “India-Pakistan tensions escalate after deadly Kashmir attack.” Atlantic Council, May 6, 2025, “Experts react: India just launched airstrikes against Pakistan.” The Hindu, May 5, 2025, “Operation Sindoor highlights.” The Times of India, April 24, 2025, “Pahalgam carnage exposes Pakistan’s calculated diplomacy-terror nexus.” The Hindu, April 24, 2025, “Pahalgam terror attack highlights.” Al Jazeera, May 10, 2025, “India’s economic leverage shifts Gulf dynamics.”- May 25, 2025
- Viren S Doshi