The Washington Post has revealed that India is deploying dozens of former diplomats and lawmakers across more than 20 global capitals in a last-minute diplomatic campaign to recover its international image after its latest military flare-up with Pakistan. The goal: to gain support for a more aggressive military stance against its longtime rival.
According to the report by journalist Neha Masiha, India is framing its deepest cross-border strike in over five decades as a legitimate response to a deadly attack on tourists in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Now, New Delhi is attempting to convince its allies that this strike is part of a new front in the global war on terror.
Opposition leader and former UN diplomat Shashi Tharoor, who is heading a delegation to Washington in early June, was quoted saying:
“We want them to understand what happened, how we reached this ‘new normal,’ and to show our resolve to never allow this again.”
Yet, as critics in New Delhi point out, Modi’s government has failed to secure the international backing it expected. Rather than treating India as the dominant regional power, the global response has cast both India and Pakistan as equal players—a dynamic India has long tried to avoid. The resulting instability has unsettled the already fragile balance in South Asia—something no PR campaign can quickly fix.
South Asia expert Sushant Singh of Yale University remarked:
“This is, above all, an admission of the failure of Modi’s diplomacy and foreign policy.”
The May skirmish marked the most dangerous confrontation between India and Pakistan since their nuclear development, bringing the two nations to the brink of full-scale war. According to The Washington Post, the fighting resulted in 24 civilian deaths, the loss of at least two Indian fighter jets, and damage to six Pakistani airports during the Indian raids.
To manufacture an image of national consensus, the delegations were composed of members from various Indian political parties. Yet the unity image faltered quickly. Opposition parties criticised the Modi government for skipping a parliamentary session on the strategic implications of the conflict, and for selecting the delegation unilaterally, excluding key voices.
As Indian representatives traveled from Seoul to Doha to Washington, opposition voices warned that New Delhi remains inwardly focused, prioritising political optics over meaningful foreign policy.
Opposition Congress Party spokesman Jairam Ramesh stated:
“We’re facing serious issues—Pakistan’s ties with China, the internationalisation of Kashmir—yet the Prime Minister is focused, as always, on appearances.”
While former President Donald Trump condemned the April 22 attack in Kashmir and expressed solidarity with India, his administration immediately called for de-escalation following India’s first airstrikes on May 7.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio commented:
“The United States will work with both sides toward a peaceful resolution.”
But this equation of India with Pakistan left New Delhi deeply uncomfortable, as it undermines India’s projected image as a rising global superpower.
At first, Washington appeared vague about its role as a potential mediator. Vice President J.D. Vance went so far as to claim:
“This conflict is not really our business.”
However, U.S. involvement increased behind the scenes. A Trump-led announcement on May 10 declared a ceasefire, though India insisted it had been a bilateral negotiation and rejected Rubio’s assertion that it had agreed to broader talks with Pakistan.
India has long accused Islamabad of sponsoring militancy in occupied Kashmir, blaming it for the April attack that killed 26 civilians. Pakistan denied the accusations and called for an international investigation.
A senior Indian opposition MP, speaking anonymously, told the Washington Post:
“India’s handling of the attack has weakened its position.”Despite a massive military presence in Kashmir, the perpetrators remain at large, over a month after the attack.
“This is a serious intelligence failure,” the MP added. “But no one dares ask questions—they fear being branded as anti-national.”
On May 7, India’s Ministry of External Affairs claimed investigators had identified “a clear picture of the planners and supporters” behind the attack, but no updates were ever made public.
A Western diplomat based in New Delhi, speaking anonymously, confirmed that many foreign officials are concerned about India’s lack of transparency—specifically, its refusal to share evidence implicating Pakistan or reveal the status of its downed fighter jets.
“If Indian officials don’t become more open,” the diplomat warned, “their global outreach campaign could collapse.”
Tharoor, one of the campaign’s figureheads, noted that India had submitted irrefutable evidence after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which killed over 160 people and were traced to a Pakistan-based armed group.
“Still, Islamabad continued to receive international aid,” he said.“Evidence alone no longer makes a difference.”
The seven Indian delegations are now traversing the globe, focusing on UN Security Council members and incoming member states.
In Doha, the delegation met with a Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, they met the Deputy Prime Minister. In Japan, they held a brief meeting with the Foreign Minister. The tour also involved dinners with think tank experts and public events with Indian diaspora communities.
Behind closed doors, they raised concerns about nuclear escalation and India’s threat to suspend a key water treaty—both high-stakes moves with global repercussions.
To soften its image, India also employed cultural diplomacy. In Kuwait, the delegation visited the Grand Mosque. In the U.S., they began their tour at the 9/11 Memorial in New York, and in Seoul, a delegation leader filmed a short Instagram video with a famous Korean influencer fluent in Hindi.
In Washington, the delegation is expected to meet with Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee members. The State Department declined to comment on these meetings, and the White House did not respond to requests for clarification.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has launched its own counter-effort. Former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari announced on social media that he would lead a team to present Pakistan’s narrative of peace to the international community.
U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who was barred from entering Indian-occupied Kashmir during a 2019 security clampdown, stressed the need for political resolution:
“Kashmir remains a flashpoint for conflict, and will continue to be until all parties commit to a sustainable political solution.”
In Washington, India’s delegation may be pressed on the Trump administration’s role in brokering the ceasefire—a claim New Delhi continues to reject.
Milan Vaishnav, director of the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, commented:
“India sees itself as a rising global power and believes it can resolve its challenges alone.”But while Trump’s rhetoric may have rattled Indian policymakers, Vaishnav added that India is still on firmer diplomatic ground than Pakistan, which has failed to develop any new strategic partnerships with the U.S. since the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Still, Western leniency toward Modi’s domestic policies, especially due to shared geopolitical concerns over China, has created a dangerous illusion:
“India believes its domestic narrative control—through state-aligned media and curated messaging—can be exported abroad.”
