While the military aspects of the recent India-Pakistan crisis have garnered significant attention, the diplomatic and foreign policy dimensions have received comparatively less focus. Soon after the Pahalgam attack, India was quick to jump to conclusions as it blamed Pakistan for sponsoring this attack. Pakistan’s restrained and mature response to Indian allegations found resonance among several international actors, including the US State Department, which appreciated Pakistan’s proposal for a ‘neutral investigation.’ Through consistent communication and diplomatic outreach, Pakistan avoided isolation and gained credibility as a responsible regional actor. This piece will examine how Islamabad’s initial restraint, emphasis on neutral investigations, effective diplomatic messaging, rather than aggressive rhetoric, enabled it to secure important diplomatic gains during a high-stakes moment in South Asian geopolitics.
The eruption of the recent crisis between India and Pakistan can be divided into three phases: post-Pahalgam, post-Operation Sindoor, and post-Operation Bunyan ul Marsus. On 22nd April 2025, when the Pahalgam attack happened in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammau and Kashmir (IIOJK), the first thing that came out of Delhi was blaming Pakistan for sponsoring cross-border terrorism. This was followed by the high-level meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on the incident. The outcome of this meeting came out in the form of various diplomatic steps to ‘punish’ Pakistan, prominent of which were the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960, which will be held in abeyance, closure of the Attari-Wagah crossing, and cancellation of visas of Pakistanis in India. All these steps were taken without any conclusive evidence against Pakistan for sponsoring any such attack. Pakistan responded by calling the National Security Committee (NSC) ‘s meeting. NSC members condemned the Indian hasty and reflexive response, which aimed to exploit the situation. The outcomes of this meeting were mainly to address the Indian actions and their appropriate response.
After this attack, the leadership in Islamabad exercised caution, and the response was reactionary to the diplomatic measures taken by India. On 26th April 2025, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif reiterated the need for a neutral investigation by stating that:
The recent tragedy in Pahalgam is yet another example of this perpetual blame game, which must come to a grinding halt. As a responsible country, Pakistan is open to participating in any neutral, transparent, and credible investigation.
This statement reflected two major factors. First is highlighting the continuation of Indian policies vis-à-vis Pakistan, where India blames Pakistan the moment any militant attack takes place anywhere in IIOJK, or for that matter, in India. Such notions were further solidified by Indian actions, where hours after the Pahalgam attack took place, they blamed everything on Pakistan. The second factor is portraying Pakistan as a responsible state in the region. Pakistan’s continuous calls for neutral investigations into the incident demonstrated its willingness for dialogue leading to peace in the region. Aggressive statements from the Indian side calling for action against Pakistan without any evidence only tarnished their own image as the responsible stakeholders. A few days before Pahalgam, Jaffer Express was hijacked by the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA) in Baluchistan province of Pakistan. Kulbhushan Jadhav is a prime example of how India sponsors BLA’s activities in Baluchistan. Despite Pakistan having credible evidence about India attempts to destabilize Pakistan, Islamabad refrained from jumping to conclusions by blaming India. This exhibits diplomatic maturity on the Pakistani side, contrary to the aggressive Indian posture.
This was followed by the launch of ‘Operation Sindoor’ in which India conducted missile strikes on various sites in Pakistan. The strikes remained highly counter value thereby resulting in casualties of innocent civilians, including some children. Such Indian belligerent and aggressive overtures under the nuclear overhang were tantamount to irrationality which could have brought widespread instability. Indian FM Jaishankar later claimed that Pakistani authorities were informed to stay out of this matter as India was hitting ‘terrorist hideouts’ inside Pakistan. Such statements are absurd considering the gravity of the situation. The naïve Indian leadership was unable to realize that they breached the sovereignty of an independent state. The international community rushed to lessen hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. Turkey called out Indian actions by calling out the risk of “all-out war,” detrimental to regional peace and security. China called for restraint and offered its good offices for mediation. In response to Indian attacks, Pakistan conducted operations to counter Indian aggression, inflicting heavy damage. Pakistan also conducted retaliatory strikes three days later when it launched ‘Operation Bunyan Al Marsoos’.
There were three main issues on Pakistan’s list while engaging diplomatically after this whole crisis: the Kashmir issue, water, and terrorism. But Pakistan aimed to bring these issues to the table if India seriously wanted to pursue them. As per the statement of Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, “Whenever they ask for a dialogue, at whatever level, we are ready but we are not desperate,”
The first issue was the internationalization of the Kashmir issue, which has always been on Pakistan’s priority list, and was a significant diplomatic win during this conflict. While posting on his X platform, Donald Trump wrote, “I will work with you both to see if, after a ‘thousand years,’ a solution can be reached concerning Kashmir”. Recently, Dawn News reported that after mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, Trump has offered to work on Kashmir issues, confirmed by the state department. Pakistan has initiated a comprehensive outreach campaign in the United States to convey its viewpoint on the recent escalation in tensions with India and to push back against New Delhi’s expanding lobbying efforts in Washington. In this backdrop, Pakistan recently sent a high-level delegation to counter the disinformation campaign India has launched since the Pahalgam attack.
The second important aspect was India’s unilateral and illegal move to hold IWT in abeyance. The Indian narrative of “blood and water can’t flow together” was duly countered by Pakistan, which considered any such step an “act of war”. The major diplomatic win for Pakistan in this case was the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) supplemental award, which said that the competence of IWT remains intact. It is suggested that India can’t make a unilateral decision that would hinder the proceedings, which will be continued in a timely, efficient, and fair manner. This supplemental award was categorically rejected by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs while questioning the credibility of the PCA itself.
The third aspect was the issue of terrorism, which Pakistan duly recognizes as a common threat in the region. India, time and again, alleges that Pakistan is sponsoring cross-border terrorism. This year’s SCO defense ministers’ meeting in China addressed the issue of terrorism. India refused to sign a joint communiqué, which raised concerns over terrorism, citing the reason that “India wanted concerns on terrorism reflected in the document, which was not acceptable to one particular country, and therefore, the statement was not adopted”, stated the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. Dawn News reported that India tried linking Pahalgam with Pakistan—the idea which received less support from other member countries at the SCO. India’s politicization of regional organizations is not novel, as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) lives as an example. Currently, Pakistan and China are eyeing another regional bloc amid the failure of SAARC after India’s continuous politicization of this regional organization. India’s aggression and unilateral efforts to hinder regional integration are less likely to be entertained if such a grouping is formed.
The diplomatic approach of India and Pakistan reveals a stark contrast in their policies after the recent standoff. India’s aggressive posture has largely damaged its credibility at the international level. Pakistan’s response was more measured, consistent, and responsible, avoiding any isolation at the international level. Key wins for Pakistan included the reinforcement of the Kashmir issue on the global agenda, the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s support for the integrity of the IWT framework, and the regional pushback against India’s narrative linking terrorism with Pakistan at multilateral platforms like the SCO.
Author: Ayesha Sikandar, Research Associate, Strategic Vision Institute.
