In response to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians, India launched a major military operation known as Operation Sindoor. Targeted attacks were carried out against nine “terror camps” in Pakistan and PoK in order to destroy the infrastructure supporting terror organisations. Even though the operation was widely applauded at home for taking a firm stand against terrorism but it caused a number of political, diplomatic, and social repercussions for the government, and a long-cultivated image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vishwa Guru.
On May 7, tensions between India and Pakistan escalated dramatically following Indian strikes inside Pakistani territory. Over the next four days, retaliatory attacks ensued, drawing global attention not only to the conflict itself but to how major powers responded.
China quickly declared support for Pakistan’s sovereignty. Turkey stood with Islamabad too. But unfortunately no nation made a similar statement backing India. The ceasefire was brokered by the United States – not as a diplomatic partner, but as a directive power. President Donald Trump placed India and Pakistan on the same footing in his public remarks, omitting any mention of terrorism – India’s central concern.
This parity raised troubling questions. Despite India’s growing economic and defence ties with the U.S., Washington showed no preferential treatment. Other nations, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, also engaged both sides in similar sequence – Islamabad first, New Delhi second – further eroding India’s effort to ‘de-hyphenate’ itself from Pakistan.
As Suhasini Haidar, Diplomatic Affairs Editor of The Hindu, noted during an interview with former Union Minister Kapil Sibal: “All the world leaders who talked to India and Pakistan, their entire focus was on reducing tension and not on terrorism. India wants that it should not be compared with Pakistan but this did not happen. America’s trade with India is $140 billion and with Pakistan it is about $10 billion, yet Trump put both countries on the same scale.”
While India has consistently sought to prevent the internationalisation of the Kashmir issue, many analysts believe Pakistan succeeded in doing just that during this crisis.
In recent years, India has transitioned from Nehru’s doctrine of non-alignment to a strategy of multi-alignment. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, India has cultivated relationships across rival blocs – joining the U.S.-led Quad while remaining active in the China- and Russia-backed SCO.
Modi himself has pursued extensive diplomatic outreach, making 89 foreign visits since taking office, including ten trips to the United States. But when conflict erupted, none of these partnerships translated into clear support. The Quad remained silent. For the first time in 70 years Russia, India’s long-time strategic partner, offered no visible backing. China stood firmly with Pakistan. Even Turkey, a NATO member and U.S. ally, chose Islamabad.
The IMF approved a $1 billion loan for Pakistan amid India’s concerns over potential misuse for terrorism.
Analysts argue that this episode highlights a critical flaw in India’s current strategy: multi-alignment offers flexibility, but not loyalty. In this crisis, India stood alone – part of many alliances in name, but none in solidarity.
For this failure on the international front, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar came under fire from several quarters. He was mocked on social media with a laser eyes meme. Analysts said that arrogance and loudmouth of Jaishankar taking jibes at anyone be it EU, West or China might have worked for local audiences but it proved counterproductive outside.
In what many see as an implicit acknowledgment of this failure, the government has now dispatched seven diplomatic delegations to key world capitals.
Ceasefire Controversy
The ceasefire announcement also became a focal point of domestic criticism. President Trump claimed credit for mediating the truce and offered trade incentives to both sides. This raised questions in India: Why did a sovereign country allow the United States to announce a ceasefire that, according to Prime Minister Modi, stemmed from Pakistan’s outreach to India’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO)?
Opposition leaders and analysts called this a diplomatic defeat, especially given India’s insistence that Kashmir is an internal matter. Many demanded transparency and a special session of Parliament to discuss “Operation Sindoor” and the subsequent truce.
Critics contrasted Modi’s perceived acquiescence with the assertiveness of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who resisted U.S. pressure during the 1971 Indo-Pak war. Congress leader Pawan Khera and others questioned the government’s silence on military losses and criticised the implied equivalence drawn between India and Pakistan in international narratives.
Further controversy erupted when President Trump released another video statement just before Modi’s national address. Modi’s 22-minute speech made no mention of Trump’s comments, a silence that drew widespread scrutiny.
Operational Fallout and Political Divides
Social media posts on X and some opposition voices criticised the operation as reckless, pointing to exaggerated claims of terror base destruction and the inability to foresee Pakistan’s retaliation attacks, which are said to have killed soldiers and civilians near the LoC. Furthermore, posts on X described the operation as a “fiasco” that harmed Modi’s reputation both at home and abroad.
The operation initially garnered widespread support from political parties, celebrities, and citizens, with leaders like Nitish Kumar and Jairam Ramesh emphasising national unity against terrorism.
Global Media and Strategic Risks
International media coverage acknowledged India’s bold stand against terrorism but also highlighted the risks of escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbours. Prime Minister Modi’s warnings against nuclear blackmail and his assertion of a “new normal” in counter-terrorism received global attention.
However, military historian Srinath Raghavan warned that this “new normal” could prove dangerous.
“The problem with establishing a new normal,” he noted, “is that it will demand an even more aggressive response in the next crisis, escalating tensions further.”
Economic and Social Impacts
Economic concerns also emerged. Some social media posts estimated losses of up to ₹6.9 trillion, though these figures remain unverified. The conflict caused significant disruption: 21 airports in northern and north-western India were closed temporarily, flights were cancelled, and the Kartarpur Corridor was suspended. While these steps were precautionary, they contributed to public inconvenience and economic strain.
Social Media Discontent
Posts on X reflected significant discontent, with some users labelling the operation a failure due to military losses and the government’s inability to control the narrative on social media. The Modi government was accused of prioritising bravado over strategic outcomes, further polarising public sentiment.
According to political observers, the Modi government faced significant fallouts, including domestic political criticism, diplomatic controversies over U.S. mediation, civilian casualties from Pakistani retaliation, and economic disruptions. While the operation was a bold move against terrorism, its perceived shortcomings – such as the failure to capture the Pahalgam attackers, premature ceasefire, and security lapses – fuelled opposition demands for accountability and damaged India’s strategic narrative.
They further pointed out that India has long been portrayed by Modi as a civilizational power with deep spirituality, promising economic growth, and significant geopolitical influence. Over the past ten years, Modi has skilfully used soft power, diaspora diplomacy, and high-profile summits with international leaders to establish himself as both a global statesman and a curator of this ancient history. But all these did not make any impact as not a single country except Israel came forward to support India in its fight against terrorism. All those countries perceived as India’s allies merely issued a routine statement condemning the terrorist act in Pahalgam.