How (not) to put your best foot forward

#1

The all-party delegations are expected to project India’s ‘national consensus’ on cross-border terrorism. What is the consensus? What did the government do to build said consensus before, during and after Operation Sindoor?

Truth be told, the government did precious little to forge a national consensus, even after Opposition leaders repeatedly urged that it convene a special session of Parliament to take everyone on board. The prime minister didn’t even show up at the all-party meeting, which, in his absence, was chaired by defence minister Rajnath Singh. He clearly didn’t see the need to consult anyone other than his CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) colleagues and the military brass. Controlled video footage of this meeting was duly played on loop on all television channels.

By contrast, following the Chinese incursion in 1962, Parliament was convened during the war, and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru fielded questions from the Opposition. In 1965 and 1971, apart from the Opposition, the government also briefed writers, filmmakers, poets, journalists and artists. No such attempt was made after Pahalgam. In fact, PM Modi chose to skip the all-party meeting in favour of campaigning in poll-bound Bihar. Demands to convene Parliament were simply ignored.

Even after Operation Sindoor, the prime minister maintained a stony silence, not even bothering to refute US President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that it was his administration that mediated the ceasefire, that he’d used trade as both carrot and stick to make India and Pakistan fall in line, and other such statements that left the Indian government red-faced and scrambling to salvage the narrative.

In stark contrast to his timidity in taking on Trump’s mediation claims, at home, the propaganda machinery was busy feting him as the hero who had drawn a ‘new red line’, with his photographs plastered all over — even on school bags and railway tickets. Not the most convincing way to forge a national consensus that you can then project abroad.

#1b

Even non-BJP members on these delegations were handpicked by the BJP, without even consulting their respective parties. What does that reveal about the government’s intent?

It would not have cost the government anything to consult the national parties — there are only six — and select the members through such consultation. Not doing so betrayed a lack of trust at a time when the nation needed a consensus, even more than projecting it abroad. There wasn’t even an attempt to communicate how the government had come up with the names, and to the extent that any design was manifest in the exercise, it looked politically motivated.

#2

Is the exercise of sending out these delegations an admission of India’s diplomatic isolation on the issue? What was the response of the ‘Big Five’ UNSC permanent members to India’s offensive after Pahalgam?

India’s military strike post-Pahalgam, codenamed Operation Sindoor, was endorsed by Israel, Taiwan and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Barring these three, India’s stand received little support from even traditional allies. In calling for restraint before the ceasefire, the United States made no distinction between India and Pakistan (“both are friends, both have nuclear arms,” Trump said); there was no public acknowledgment of India’s case that Pakistan was sponsoring cross-border terror.

Of the other ‘Big Five’ nations — the five permanent members (P5) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) — China unequivocally declared that it would protect Pakistan’s sovereignty and integrity. Russia, France and the UK also advised ‘both countries’ to exercise restraint and settle their dispute through dialogue.

India received no backing from the G7, G20, BRICS or Quad nations, nor even from its neighbours. By contrast, Turkiye stood by Pakistan and the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) grouping — which has 57 member countries in four continents — cited India’s ‘unfounded allegations against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’ as a key factor inflaming tensions in the South Asian region. The foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia travelled to Pakistan and then India in a bid to defuse the situation.

The UN Security Council resolution refrained from making any reference to The Resistance Front, an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which initially claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack (but later retracted). India also protested in vain against the approval by the IMF board of a $2.3 billion loan to Pakistan.

India had strongly argued that there was a risk of these funds being misused by Pakistan. While India abstained from voting, none of the other 24 directors, representing 24 other countries, in the IMF executive board did.

#3

Shouldn’t the government have taken the lead in explaining India’s position to the world? Why is our (globe-trotting) prime minister and the ministry of external affairs not a part of the exercise?

Foreign policy is said to be the exclusive domain of the Union government. The onus should, therefore, be on the government to present India’s case to the world. Opposition parties have also noted that in the Modi years, he alone has represented India in all summits. He has publicly claimed to be a friend of several world leaders, and one would have expected him to lead the charge, call up his friends and explain India’s stand. PM Modi has not even rebutted the mediation claims made by his ‘friend’ Donald Trump, leaving the task to his minions.

While the external affairs ministry summoned foreign envoys after the Pahalgam attack and shared evidence of Pakistan’s complicity, said evidence, according to reports in US media, failed to convince the delegates. The perceived failure of Indian diplomatic missions to build international public opinion is also likely to have necessitated the all-party delegations.