Indian Diplomatic Double Standards

The recent fallout following the Pahalgam incident has cast a glaring spotlight on India’s diplomatic approach, revealing an unsettling pattern of double standards. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar have actively sought bilateral support and welcomed individual condemnations of the attack, India has simultaneously obstructed collective diplomatic efforts on multilateral platforms. This contradictory posture — engaging selectively and shunning institutional consensus — exposes a unilateral mindset that threatens both regional stability and India’s credibility on the international stage.

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, India’s leadership quickly reached out to key states around the world, eliciting statements of condemnation and support. Such diplomatic outreach is not uncommon; states often seek allies to rally international opinion when their interests are threatened. However, the selective nature of this engagement is what raises eyebrows.

India’s acceptance of individual condemnations stands in stark contrast to its resistance to multilateral expressions of solidarity, especially within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). India blocked efforts to issue a joint statement condemning the attack, despite the SCO’s foundational goal of promoting collective security among member states. This dichotomy — embracing bilateral backing while thwarting multilateral consensus — reveals India’s reluctance to commit to collective diplomacy that might entail reciprocal obligations or broader scrutiny.

\Adding to the contradiction was India’s outright dismissal of former US President Donald Trump’s ceasefire proposal. Such rejection signals a rigidity in India’s Kashmir policy and an unwillingness to engage with international mediation, even when such efforts could ease tensions. While the Kashmir dispute is undoubtedly a sensitive matter of sovereignty and security for India, refusing dialogue opportunities undercuts possibilities for de-escalation and undermines India’s image as a responsible actor open to peaceful resolution.

The refusal of third-party intervention, coupled with the blocking of multilateral statements, paints India as a state favoring unilateral control over the narrative and conduct of its foreign policy, often at the expense of diplomatic flexibility and regional peace.

One of the most glaring manifestations of India’s double standards emerges in its reaction to countries like Iran, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. These nations have expressed varying degrees of support or neutrality regarding Pakistan and the Kashmir issue, prompting India to retaliate diplomatically despite strong and growing trade relationships.

To put the economic stakes in perspective, India’s trade volume with these countries is significant: approximately $2.3 billion with Iran, $12.5 billion with Turkey, and $1.7 billion with Azerbaijan for the fiscal year 2023–24. Such robust economic ties would typically encourage diplomatic pragmatism aimed at preserving mutually beneficial partnerships.

Instead, India’s punitive diplomatic stance suggests that political loyalty and alignment on sensitive security issues take precedence over economic interests. By downplaying and retaliating against these countries’ neutral or pro-Pakistan positions, India demonstrates a tendency toward “retaliatory bilateralism” — using diplomatic tools not just to protect but to punish, signaling a transactional and zero-sum approach to foreign relations.

India’s actions reveal a foreign policy calculus heavily influenced by political loyalty rather than pragmatic economics. The willingness to jeopardize trade ties with Iran, Turkey, and Azerbaijan over their stance on Kashmir exposes a prioritization of ideological and security concerns over economic diplomacy.

This approach is especially problematic given the interconnected nature of global trade and diplomacy. Nations today thrive on cooperation across multiple domains; risking trade relations for political posturing ultimately limits India’s strategic options and undermines its economic goals. Furthermore, it signals to the international community that India may prioritize hardline postures over collaborative engagement, even with historically friendly or economically important partners.

India’s diplomatic selective embrace — welcoming bilateral support but blocking multilateral condemnation — raises serious questions about its commitment to institutional frameworks. The SCO, a key regional organization for security cooperation, finds its authority undercut when a member selectively vetoes joint statements on critical issues.

Such actions erode trust not only in India but in multilateral institutions themselves, weakening their ability to function as platforms for dialogue and conflict resolution. By undermining collective diplomacy, India inadvertently pushes smaller states to navigate increasingly polarized alliances, complicating regional cooperation and stability.

India’s diplomatic posture appears inconsistent and contradictory: it welcomes condemnations from friendly nations but rejects offers of mediation, including those from global powers like the United States. This inconsistency creates a perception of a foreign policy driven by optics rather than substance.

By encouraging selective diplomatic support while shutting down avenues for dialogue and mediation, India risks isolating itself from the broader international community’s efforts to promote peace and stability in South Asia.

India’s selective diplomacy and retaliatory tactics exacerbate regional mistrust and deepen divisions. Smaller and middle powers in the region are compelled to choose sides rather than engage in balanced diplomacy, leading to increased polarization.

This environment stifles opportunities for dialogue, confidence-building measures, and cooperation on shared challenges such as terrorism, economic development, and climate change. A rigid, punitive diplomatic style thus not only harms bilateral relations but also impedes regional integration and peace.

India’s diplomatic approach in the wake of the Pahalgam incident exposes troubling double standards — a penchant for bilateral pleas coupled with unilateralism in practice. Welcoming individual condemnations while blocking multilateral statements, rejecting mediation despite potential benefits, and retaliating diplomatically against important trade partners reveal a foreign policy driven more by political loyalty and control than pragmatic engagement and institutional respect.

For India to assert itself as a responsible regional leader, it must reconcile these contradictions by embracing inclusive, consistent, and transparent diplomacy. This means valuing multilateral platforms, engaging constructively with diverse voices, and balancing political concerns with economic realities. Only through such coherent diplomacy can India build the trust and cooperation necessary to foster peace, stability, and prosperity in South Asia and beyond. Without this shift, India risks further isolation, regional polarization, and the erosion of its international standing.