Two weeks after pulling back from the brink of all-out war, India and Pakistan are now racing to win over global opinion.
Both sides are sending delegations to global capitals to influence international perception of the conflict as tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals continue to simmer.
New Delhi this week dispatched seven teams of diplomats and lawmakers to capitals of about 30 countries, including in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America, as part of its publicity campaign. The delegates have been told to detail Islamabad’s history of supporting militants and its alleged involvement in the deadly April 22 attacks in the India-administered part of Kashmir, the incident that triggered the latest conflict.
Illustration: Mountain People
India is also pushing back against the perception — reinforced by US President Donald Trump’s social media posts — that the two sides were equals in their dispute over the territory of Kashmir and that they had agreed to mediated peace talks.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday last week ruled out talks with Pakistan and vowed military action if faced with further terrorist attacks.
Separately, the Indian minister of foreign affairs told Dutch broadcaster NOS that the May 10 truce was negotiated directly between India and Pakistan, refuting Trump’s claim of brokering the ceasefire.
“For many Indians, Trump’s messaging on mediation amounts to drawing a false equivalence by treating India and Pakistan the same,” said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst based in Washington. “This is a major setback for New Delhi, given that it amounts to a victory for Islamabad in the battle of narratives that has endured even after the fighting stopped.”
Pakistan is also planning its own diplomatic initiative, although on a much smaller scale. Its government has said it is sending seven officials to three European capitals and the US to make the case that it, not India, is the victim.
The dueling efforts are playing out almost two weeks after both countries agreed to a ceasefire, following days of intense airstrikes, including using drones, and artillery and small arms exchanges between the two nations. The fighting touched off after India blamed Pakistan for what it called a terrorist attack that killed 26 civilians, mostly Indian tourists. Pakistan denied responsibility.
Trump’s attempt to take credit for the ceasefire has frustrated Indian officials, as have his assertions that trade was used as a bargaining chip to negotiate the truce. New Delhi has denied those claims, as well as a statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the two sides agreed to begin talks on a broad set of issues at “a neutral site.”
In their diplomatic outreach, a main focus of the message from Indian officials will be Pakistan’s alleged links to terrorism and its purported involvement in the April 22 attack on civilians, said Rajeev Kumar Rai, a member of the Indian parliament who is part of a delegation visiting Spain, Greece, Slovenia and Russia.
The teams will specifically raise Pakistan’s alleged support for UN-designated terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, according to officials familiar with the outreach, who asked not to be identified because the discussions were private.
They will also inform foreign officials that India remains resolved to respond to violence in a manner it deems fit, they said.
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking further information.
Of the nations on India’s list to visit, roughly one-third are members of the Organization of Islamic Countries, a multilateral body that claims to speak for the Muslim world. Pakistan is also a member of that group and has lobbied it for greater intervention in the Kashmir conflict.
New Delhi also aims to target Pakistan’s economy, which is only beginning to recover from a prolonged crisis.
India plans to urge the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force to take renewed action against Pakistan, a government official said on Friday in New Delhi.
The anti-money laundering watchdog removed Pakistan from its terror-financing list in 2022, easing Islamabad’s access to trade and investments.
India wants Pakistan returned to the gray list, the official said.
For its part, Pakistan has said the goal of its outreach is to highlight what it says are its “consistent and constructive efforts to ensure peace and stability in the region,” according to the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan.
It said its officials will “expose India’s propaganda campaigns.”
The Pakistan officials will also bring up India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty — a critical water-sharing pact — that can have serious long-term consequences for Pakistan.
“Breaking the treaty at will is irresponsible behavior,” said Khurram Dastgir Khan, who is part of Pakistan’s delegation. “If the water issue is not solved, then we are looking at another war in six to 10 years.”
New Delhi suspended the treaty, which governs the distribution of waters from six rivers flowing from the Himalayas, after the Kashmir attacks.
“President Trump has demonstrated more openness to working with Pakistan than we saw under [former US] President [Joe] Biden, so this moment does represent a meaningful opportunity for Pakistan to reassert its relevance in Washington,” said Elizabeth Threlkeld, senior fellow and director of South Asia at the Stimson Center in Washington.
For India, the diplomatic effort is complicated by the fact that it continues to press ahead with trade talks with the US, which it hopes will remove Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs on the South Asian country’s exports.
“The challenge for policymakers in the US and New Delhi will be to navigate sensitivities over US mediation while continuing to make progress in other areas of the relationship, including trade and defense,” Threlkeld said.
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS