India’s Diplomacy of Double Standards

In the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam incident, India’s foreign ministry summoned diplomats from over 100 countries in New Delhi for an urgent briefing. On the surface, it seemed like a legitimate act of global engagement. But scratch beneath the diplomatic polish, and what emerges is a calculated exercise in power projection—an attempt to weaponize diplomacy to serve narrow political interests.

India has long championed itself as the world’s largest democracy, wrapped in the rhetoric of international cooperation. But increasingly, New Delhi uses the veneer of diplomacy not to build bridges, but to isolate its regional rival: Pakistan. The Pahalgam briefings were less about transparency and more about narrative engineering. In gathering such a large cohort of diplomats, India wasn’t just reporting facts—it was manufacturing consent.

This isn’t new. India’s foreign policy has, over the years, leaned into a troubling duality—publicly invoking the principles of multilateralism while privately pursuing partisan ends. By dragging the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and other multilateral forums into its version of events, New Delhi is not only politicizing neutral platforms but is also setting a dangerous precedent: turning diplomacy into a battleground for blame rather than resolution.

What we are witnessing is a diplomatic sleight of hand. India’s outreach, under the guise of information sharing, is being used to build a case for future aggression. It’s a well-practiced choreography—paint Pakistan into a corner diplomatically, then act militarily, later citing “global concern” as justification. This cycle has played out before, particularly after Pulwama and Uri. Each time, the diplomatic overture came first, followed by a kinetic escalation, all under the cover of moral high ground.

Such actions are not just duplicitous; they erode the norms of global diplomacy. Diplomacy is meant to defuse tensions, not prepare the ground for armed conflict. Yet, India’s briefings appear less as appeals for peace and more as rehearsals for retribution.

The hypocrisy is glaring. While India decries interference and lectures on sovereignty, it freely mobilizes its diplomatic machinery to influence international opinion, turning embassies into echo chambers for its partisan narrative. It chastises external commentary on its internal affairs but demands global sympathy for its unilateral claims.

This aggressive diplomatic posture is not a sign of strength—it’s a symptom of insecurity. Real power lies in restraint, in building dialogue, not dominance. If India genuinely seeks peace in South Asia, it must abandon the dangerous fusion of diplomacy and coercion.

Until then, the world must see these briefings for what they are—not gestures of goodwill, but calculated moves in a long political game. And diplomacy, in its truest form, deserves better.