Tweet

The Pak-sponsored terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, which resulted in the tragic loss of 26 lives, has once again thrust India into a complex web of regional tensions and international diplomacy. While India responded unequivocally with Operation Sindoor, targeting terrorist infrastructures, the subsequent ceasefire, reportedly brokered by the United States, has raised questions about India's strategic choices and the reliability of its international partners.

The Pahalgam Attack and Immediate Aftermath

The Pahalgam massacre marked one of the deadliest Pak-backed terrorist attacks on India in recent years, following Pathankot (2016), Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019). In retaliation, India launched Operation Sindoor, a series of targeted strikes against terrorist camps that dismantled multiple terror infrastructure nodes across the Line of Control. The rapid, calibrated response was a demonstration of India's resolve to counter terrorism emanating from its neighbour and it showcased India's enhanced counter-terrorism posture and military capabilities.

The Ceasefire and Claims of U.S. Mediation

Despite India's assertive response, a ceasefire was announced on May 10, 2025. U.S President Donald Trump, claimed credit for mediating the truce. However, India has consistently denied any foreign involvement in the ceasefire agreement, emphasising that the halt in operations was in response to a call by the Pak DGMO and highlighting its autonomous decision-making in matters of national security.

This isn't the first time Washington has portrayed itself as a peacemaker between India and Pakistan, perpetuating a false equivalence that ignores Pakistan's role as the aggressor. Washington continues to position itself as a neutral arbiter between a sovereign democracy combating terrorism and a state that sponsors it. This pattern of hyphenation—treating India and Pakistan as equals in a bilateral dispute—undermines India’s legitimate counter-terrorism stance and dilutes international pressure on Pakistan to rein in its proxy actors. It also underscores a recurring pattern where the U.S., urging both nations to exercise restraint, even when provocations are asymmetrical. Such a stance often overlooks the nuances of regional dynamics, the complexities of India's security concerns and the disproportionate disparity in virtually every metrics of national power and governance mechanisms, between India and Pakistan.

Strategic Maturity: Accepting a Ceasefire from a Position of Strength

While some critics view India’s acceptance of a ceasefire as a diplomatic compromise, it can also be interpreted as a reflection of India’s strategic maturity and clarity of purpose. India had the upper hand militarily and diplomatically in the ongoing Operation Sindoor, yet chose de-escalation over prolonged conflict. This restraint signals that India’s core objective is not escalation for its own sake, but the dismantling of terror networks and the restoration of peace.

However, this does not absolve Pakistan of its role. India missed an opportunity to demand a formal, public statement from Islamabad disavowing support for terrorism. A public declaration from Islamabad abjuring terrorism could have been a significant diplomatic victory, reinforcing India's stance against cross-border terrorism.

History of US Abandonment of its Allies

This entire episode also serves as a reality check for those in India who have advocated closer strategic alignment with the United States. Under President Trump’s renewed leadership, many expected a firmer stance from Washington in favour of India’s counter-terror operations. Instead, what emerged was the same old pattern—calls for restraint on “both sides” and diplomatic self-congratulation for brokering peace. It is a sobering reminder that the U.S., despite its strategic rhetoric, continues to view the subcontinent through a narrow lens of conflict management rather than realities on the ground. India must take note of this ambivalence, especially at a time when it is being courted as a key pillar in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

Indeed, the United States’ track record with allies is far from reassuring. South Vietnam in 1975 was left to fall to the North Vietnamese after years of American support. Iraq in 2011 was abandoned as U.S. troops withdrew, only for ISIS to fill the vacuum. Afghanistan in 2021 witnessed the most dramatic American withdrawal in decades—leaving behind allies, interpreters, and civil society leaders to face the Taliban’s resurgence. Even the Kurds in Syria, long-time partners in the fight against ISIS, were left exposed to Turkish offensives after American forces pulled out under the Trump administration. These are not isolated cases; they represent a pattern where American strategic interests are swiftly recalibrated, often leaving behind chaos and betrayed allies.

Contrasting International Responses: Russia and Israel's Unwavering Support

In contrast to the U.S.'s hyphenated approach, Russia and Israel have demonstrated unequivocal support for India. Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the Pahalgam attack as a "brutal crime" and reaffirmed support for India in combating terrorism. Similarly, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu labelled the attack as "barbaric" and expressed solidarity with India, emphasizing the shared commitment to fighting terrorism.

These nations have consistently supported India's counter-terrorism efforts, both diplomatically and through defence cooperation, highlighting the value of steadfast alliances in addressing security challenges.

Reevaluating Strategic Alliances: The Path Forward

The events following the Pahalgam attack necessitate a critical reassessment of India's strategic alliances. The U.S. remains an important partner, but India must recognise the limitations of aligning too closely with a power that continues to balance between New Delhi and Islamabad. America's strategic calculus will always prioritise equilibrium over justice. India must ensure that such relationships do not compromise its core security interests.

In contrast, India’s deeper alignment with countries like Russia, Israel, France, and even Japan—which respect its sovereignty without equivocation—offers a more dependable diplomatic base.

Conclusion

The Pahalgam attack and its aftermath have reaffirmed India’s military readiness and diplomatic restraint. By agreeing to a ceasefire from a position of superiority, India demonstrated a clear focus on its long-term objective: ending terrorism, not waging wars. However, it also serves as a poignant reminder that India will have to furrow a lonely path. This moment must also prompt reflection. India cannot afford to be reactive. It has to be pro-active. It must build strategic pressure, demand accountability from state sponsors of terror, and align with partners who stand by its principles—not just its markets.

India’s future as a regional and global power hinges on assertive diplomacy, strategic autonomy, and values-based partnerships that reinforce its national interests. The era of being clubbed with Pakistan in global assessments must end—and India must be the one to end it. By doing so, India can navigate the intricate geopolitical landscape with confidence and resilience.

Anurag Bisen (Senior Fellow-VIF)
3 June 2025

Tweet