In May 2025, India found itself at the epicentre of a renewed conflict with Pakistan, ignited by a devastating terrorist attack in Pahalgam. While India’s swift military response through Operation Sindoor showcased its tactical prowess, the subsequent international reactions painted a more complex picture. Despite achieving immediate military objectives, India faced diplomatic challenges and a credibility crisis on the global stage.
The catalyst and retaliation
On April 22, 2025, a group of terrorists opened fire on innocent civilians visiting Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, resulting in the tragic loss of 26 civilians, predominantly tourists. The Resistance Front, linked to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility. This act of terror intensified public outrage in India and set the stage for a significant military response.
In retaliation, India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting alleged terrorist infrastructures in Pakistan-administered regions. Utilising advanced Rafale jets equipped with precision weaponry, India aimed to dismantle terror camps in Bahawalpur, Muridke, and Muzaffarabad. The operation was lauded domestically as a demonstration of India’s commitment to counter-terrorism and its military capabilities.
This was followed by a series of incidents, like Pakistan shelling Poonch. This further caused damage on our side and more civilian casualties as Pakistan deliberately targeted civilian areas. More incidents followed as Pakistan was sending their drones in different parts of India, especially border states.
The Indian military dismissed all the threats using the S-400 defensive system, which played a crucial role in this warfare. India also launched an offensive, targeting their military establishment. The situation became tense, as the conflict was between two nations with nuclear arsenals.
Ceasefire and diplomatic complexities
Following the military engagements, a ceasefire was brokered, with the United States playing a pivotal role. US president Donald Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute, a proposition that Pakistan welcomed. However, India, which has traditionally opposed third-party involvement in Kashmir, faced internal debates and criticism over the potential implications of such mediation.
Strategic implications of external mediation
India’s longstanding policy has been to address the Kashmir issue bilaterally with Pakistan, and by allowing Trump to mediate between India and Pakistan, India deviated from the Shimla Accord, which disallowed the intervention of any third party in bilateral issues. Statements from leading news channels like India Today said National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar briefed their US counterparts, after which the US pushed for a ceasefire.
The Indian side, however, claimed that a deal was made between Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two nations when Pakistan contacted India for a ceasefire. The apparent openness to US mediation, or at least the lack of a firm rejection, was perceived by some as a departure from this principle.
Critics argued that this could set a precedent for future international involvement in India’s internal matters, potentially undermining its strategic autonomy. Jammu and Kashmir, which was a bilateral issue, has now become an international issue by allowing the US to mediate, which is exactly what Pakistan has been trying for many years.
Media narratives and international perception
Indian media outlets, particularly those with nationalist leanings, were quick to celebrate the military operations. However, international media criticised this approach, accusing Indian outlets of promoting jingoism and disseminating unverified information.
The spread of fake news and exaggerated claims not only tarnished India’s image but also provided Pakistan with ammunition to question India’s credibility on the global stage. The proliferation of misinformation during the conflict, including doctored videos and false claims, contributed to a credibility crisis for India.
International observers and fact-checkers highlighted instances where Indian media and social platforms shared unverified content, leading to scepticism about India’s narratives and intentions.
During the press briefing Indian Air Force (IAF) acknowledged that “losses are a part of combat” but refrained from providing specific details about aircraft losses. They confirmed that all pilots had returned safely, without elaborating on the number or types of aircraft lost.
This reticence has drawn criticism from defence analysts and media outlets, who argue that transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust and countering misinformation. The lack of detailed information has led to speculation and conflicting reports. For instance, Pakistan’s military claimed to have shot down five Indian aircraft, including Rafale jets, during the engagements.
Independent sources and analysts have suggested that at least two to three Indian aircraft, including a Rafale, may have been downed, though these reports remain unverified.
The Indian government’s cautious communication strategy appears aimed at controlling the narrative and preventing the spread of potentially demoralising information. However, this approach has also allowed alternative narratives to gain traction, particularly in the absence of concrete details from official sources. The situation underscores the challenges governments face in balancing operational security with the public’s right to information during times of conflict.
The shift in focus from counter-terrorism to geopolitical confrontation diluted the primary issue of terrorism, overshadowing the need to address the extremist threat in the region.
India found itself increasingly isolated in the region after its actions against Pakistan, following the Pahalgam attack—including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty and shutting down the Wagah-Attari border.
While India expected solidarity from its neighbours in condemning terrorism, countries like China, Nepal, and even Bangladesh maintained a neutral stance or subtly criticised India’s unilateral decisions. China called for restraint and dialogue, refraining from directly condemning the terror group, and later said they are with their ironclad friends, Pakistan, while Nepal expressed concern over the safety of its citizens but avoided aligning with India’s diplomatic stance.
The South Asian regional bloc, SAARC, also remained largely silent, exposing India’s diminishing influence in mobilising collective regional pressure against Pakistan. This diplomatic distancing by neighbours during a time of crisis not only weakened India’s position but also highlighted the fragile and interest-driven nature of regional alliances, allowing the core issue of terrorism to be overshadowed by geopolitical rivalries and strategic calculations.
Navigating modern conflicts
The May 2025 conflict underscores the multifaceted nature of modern warfare, where military victories must be complemented by strategic diplomacy and credible narratives. While India achieved its immediate objectives, the lack of strong regional backing exposed diplomatic vulnerabilities. Moving forward, India must invest in sustained engagement with its neighbours, fostering trust and cooperation on counter-terrorism and regional stability. Strengthening these ties is essential to avoid isolation and to ensure that future conflicts are met with unified regional support.
Vijay Thottathil is the president of the Indian Cultural Arts Society (INCAS), Kozhikode and a member of the Kerala Congress Digital Media cell. Views expressed here are the author's own.