The Failure of Indian Diplomacy Post-Operation Sindoor: External Posturing and Internal Evasion
- CPI National
- Jun 18
- 4 min read
The brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which claimed innocent lives and shocked the conscience of the nation, drew widespread condemnation and united the Indian people in grief and resolve. In the aftermath of the attack, the Government of India intensified its efforts to expose Pakistan's continued sponsorship of cross-border terrorism. Building on the momentum of Operation Sindoor, New Delhi launched a high-profile diplomatic offensive aimed at globally isolating Islamabad. An all-party delegation was dispatched to key world capitals to mobilize international opinion and rally support for India’s position. The twin objectives of this initiative were clear: to secure explicit diplomatic censure of Pakistan and to obstruct its access to financial support from institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Despite the moral clarity of India’s stance and the compelling evidence of Pakistan’s complicity in fostering terrorism, the diplomatic campaign faced formidable challenges. Major powers, driven by geopolitical calculations and strategic interests, remained reluctant to fully endorse India’s efforts. Moreover, neighbouring countries were excluded from the itinerary of the all-party delegation; while they condemned the terrorist attacks, they remained silent on endorsing India’s position on Pakistan.
The Communist Party of India has consistently viewed this entire exercise as a reflection of the flawed and diversionary priorities of the ruling regime. While the government found time to send a high-level delegation to court foreign sympathies, it deliberately avoided convening the Indian Parliament — the highest democratic forum in the country — to discuss the implications, objectives, and consequences of Operation Sindoor. This deliberate bypassing of Parliament reflects an authoritarian attitude and a deep disregard for democratic accountability. Instead of informing and involving the elected representatives of the Indian people, the government chose to project its narrative abroad, more concerned with international optics than internal transparency.
We believed that any operation with significant strategic, political, and regional implications must be debated in Parliament. If the situation warranted sending a multi-party delegation to other countries, why the democratic institutions in our own country kept in the dark while global audiences were given selective briefings? These questions remain unanswered. The government’s decision to treat foreign capitals with more respect than its own legislature is an affront to the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Moreover, the CPI views with concern the government’s over-reliance on militaristic narratives and external posturing, while failing to achieve any substantive diplomatic gains. The dispatch of delegations to 33 countries was accompanied by high-pitched media rhetoric, jingoistic nationalism, and claims that India was about to “diplomatically isolate Pakistan.” However, the outcomes tell a different story. Abhishek Banerjee, TMC MP and a member of one such delegation that visited Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, questioned: “How many countries extended explicit support to India?”
While our delegations were visiting various countries, Pakistan remained diplomatically engaged with major powers, and the international community showed no willingness to impose meaningful sanctions or cut off financial aid. The IMF, despite Indian objections, approved a bailout for Pakistan. The ADB, instead of freezing assistance, continued to support developmental projects there. These developments laid bare the limited influence India actually wields in global financial institutions and, more importantly, highlighted the government’s failure to build enduring, issue-based global alliances.
What is even more alarming is that India’s narrative was undermined by its own strategic partner. The U.S. President Donald Trump took public credit for “settling the conflict” between India and Pakistan — a narrative that portrayed the crisis not as a legitimate defensive operation by India, but as a bilateral dispute that was mediated and resolved by Washington. Far from highlighting India's strategic autonomy, such statements reduced India’s standing to that of a pliant regional actor managed by external powers. This diplomatic embarrassment went unaddressed by the Indian government, further eroding its claim of conducting a successful foreign policy campaign.
This episode is emblematic of a broader shift in Indian diplomacy under the current regime — one that prioritizes spectacle over substance, unilateralism over consensus, and external validation over internal democratic processes.
The CPI reaffirms its long-standing position that the fight against terrorism — real or perceived — must not become a pretext for adventurism or authoritarianism. Neither militarism nor global lobbying can be a substitute for democratic debate, regional diplomacy, and an independent foreign policy rooted in peace and justice. The government's attempt to project strength through symbolic international outreach, while weakening domestic democratic institutions, is a dangerous path that undermines both national unity and international credibility.
Furthermore, the government's claim that it united all political parties for an external campaign rings hollow when it actively silenced dissent at home, labeled critics as unpatriotic, and refused to place the matter before the Parliament. A truly democratic foreign policy must emerge from internal democratic consensus. By failing to convene Parliament, the government ensured that alternative voices — including those of peace advocates, regional experts, and opposition leaders — were excluded from shaping India’s response.
The post-Operation Sindoor diplomatic effort — marked by high-profile delegations, media sensationalism, and hollow claims of isolating Pakistan — stands exposed as a failure. It showcased the inability of the current government to convert military actions into meaningful diplomatic outcomes. More importantly, it reflected a disturbing pattern of bypassing democratic processes and seeking legitimacy abroad while denying transparency at home. The CPI calls upon the Indian people to reject this undemocratic approach to foreign policy and join in the demand for a return to democratic accountability, regional peace, and principled diplomacy.
Comments