India’s aggressive posture following the April 22 Pahalgam incident has suffered a diplomatic blow, as key global powers refrained from offering the unconditional support New Delhi had expected. Rather than garnering the strategic backing it anticipated, India’s attempt to blame Pakistan for the attack was met with marked hesitation on the global stage.
While India hastily attributed the assault to alleged cross-border terrorism, its response was neither spontaneous nor isolated. It was part of a broader, long-term strategy that the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been pursuing for over a decade. Guided by a Hindu nationalist vision, Modi’s government aims to reposition India as the dominant, unchallenged power in South Asia.
New Delhi viewed the Pahalgam incident as an opportunity to reinforce this narrative. Banking on its deepening ties with the United States, its central role in the Quad alliance, and its anti-China stance, Indian policymakers miscalculated that strategic allies would rally behind its claims without scrutiny.
Conversely, Pakistan was perceived as a weakened state, grappling with economic hardship, diplomatic isolation from the West, political fragmentation, and heavy dependence on China. This perception emboldened New Delhi to recalibrate its Pakistan strategy, using the Pahalgam event as a pretext to redefine bilateral relations on confrontational terms.
However, the anticipated international support for India’s aggressive rhetoric did not materialize. The United States, while emphasising strategic stability, avoided siding with either party. China maintained a neutral public position while reinforcing its strong partnership with Pakistan. Key Gulf states, traditionally close to India, also exercised caution and refrained from endorsing New Delhi’s narrative.
Washington’s Cold Shoulder
The timing of the attack coincided with the visit of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance to India, leading New Delhi to expect an overt show of solidarity. However, U.S. President Donald Trump appeared largely indifferent. Unlike his predecessors, Trump did not view the episode as a potential nuclear flashpoint and expressed little interest in the India-Pakistan dispute.
Former Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Defense, Senator Mushahid Hussain, remarked that President Trump does not reflect the traditional pro-India stance of the American security establishment. “Trump is fundamentally anti-war and refuses to play into the hands of what he termed ‘India’s war-hungry faction’,” Hussain said.
Senior U.S. officials mirrored this restraint. After meeting Indian envoy Vinay Mohan Kwatra, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby avoided any mention of Pakistan, terrorism, or the Pahalgam attack, instead reiterating generic commitments to defense cooperation. The emphasis remained on broader Indo-Pacific strategy, where India is seen primarily as a counterweight to China—not as a regional enforcer.
Nevertheless, the U.S. did take steps to de-escalate tensions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contacted both Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, urging calm and emphasizing bilateral cooperation for peace in South Asia.
In a separate exchange, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh claimed that U.S. counterpart Pete Hegseth supported India’s right to self-defense. Yet, the official U.S. Department of Defense readout made no mention of Pahalgam, regional instability, or Pakistan. Hegseth’s post on social media platform X offered only a vague statement: “I stand strongly with India. We are with the Indian people.”
Commenting on the matter, American scholar Daniel Markey observed, “Washington does not believe military action is the solution to India’s security concerns. Given the uncertainty, the U.S. cannot give India a green light for armed escalation, despite its sympathies.”
Markey also emphasized that India’s failure to secure strong U.S. backing should not be construed as support for Pakistan’s position either. American officials from the State Department, Pentagon, and CIA have privately pressured Pakistan to cooperate with Indian investigations, which Islamabad views as a challenge to its sovereignty.
Despite Pakistan’s prompt condemnation of the attack through its Foreign Office, Washington demanded harsher statements—revealing its dual-pressure policy.
Crucially, no major power, particularly the U.S., has unequivocally supported India’s stance. With global media questioning India’s failure to provide concrete evidence against Pakistan, doubts have resurfaced—unlike the 2019 Pulwama incident, when India gained swift international sympathy.
India’s reluctance to provide proof, coupled with its recent defiance of Western expectations—particularly its refusal to align against Russia in the Ukraine conflict—has strained relations with many Western capitals.
Masood Khan, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the U.S., noted: “Washington is re-evaluating its approach. India may be riding America’s coattails, but it offers little in return.” He added, “India acted with arrogance and impunity but is now facing consequences. Americans prioritize their own interests and have realized India is using them. They won’t be reduced to India’s proxy in the region.”
Cautious Allies in the East and Gulf
China adopted a reserved and calculated stance. Officially labeling the Pahalgam episode as a “terrorist attack,” Beijing avoided assigning blame and called for de-escalation from both sides. This aligns with its broader effort to ease tensions with India while quietly reaffirming support for Pakistan.
Behind the scenes, China backed Pakistan’s call for an independent investigation and reaffirmed its strong military ties with Islamabad. This dual-track diplomacy allowed China to sustain its “iron-clad” partnership with Pakistan while projecting itself as a responsible regional actor.
Gulf states, often seen as close allies of India due to strong economic ties and sizable Indian diasporas, also avoided aligning with New Delhi. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar all issued neutral statements urging restraint and peaceful resolution.
Rather than signaling support for India, their responses reflected a desire to protect their own strategic interests. For instance, the UAE—India’s economic partner—also hosts a significant Pakistani workforce and values diplomatic balance. Qatar, known for its mediation diplomacy, maintained a neutral stance consistent with its foreign policy.
In the end, India’s attempt to internationalize the Pahalgam incident and isolate Pakistan has failed. Instead of global endorsement, New Delhi finds itself increasingly exposed as a self-serving actor whose unilateral aggression is no longer accepted without question.
