The invitation extended to Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army has sparked debates about whether it symbolizes a diplomatic setback for India. Adding fuel to the fire, U.S. General Michael Kurilla’s remarks labeling Pakistan as a “key partner” in the fight against terrorism have further intensified scrutiny of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy. These developments have caused unease within India’s political corridors and opposition circles, raising questions about the efficacy of India’s diplomatic efforts post-conflict.
Following the Pahalgam attack and India’s retaliatory Operation Sindoor targeting Pakistan, India’s diplomatic maneuvers appear to have fallen short of expectations. Seven multi-party delegations, including former diplomats, visited 33 countries, including the European Union, to highlight Pakistan’s role in terrorism. However, Munir’s invitation to the U.S. suggests that India’s narrative failed to sway American policymakers.
General Kurilla’s statement emphasized Pakistan’s role in countering ISIS-Khorasan, noting, “Pakistan has consistently been a partner in the fight against terrorism.” This places India and Pakistan on the same footing in the U.S.’s counterterrorism strategy, a stance that contradicts India’s position. The Trump administration’s apparent dismissal of India’s narrative has added to the diplomatic challenges.
Notably, Kurilla’s comments came at a time when India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, speaking in Brussels, criticized the West for equating India and Pakistan in the fight against terrorism. He remarked, “If some still don’t see the danger, they will regret it one day. Terrorism will bite them too.” Referencing Osama bin Laden, Jaishankar questioned why the al-Qaeda leader felt safe living near Pakistani military bases for years, emphasizing that the issue transcends the India-Pakistan conflict and centers on terrorism itself.
Despite India’s efforts to garner international support through its delegations, the opposition Congress party has labeled these initiatives a “colossal failure.” Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate pointed out that Pakistan continues to secure representation in international forums and substantial loans. She noted, “Modi has been in power for 11 years and visited 90 countries, yet his diplomacy has yielded nothing for India.” Pakistan faced no direct condemnation for the Pahalgam attack, and no country strongly backed India’s stance.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also took to X, stating, “Munir, who made provocative remarks before the Pahalgam attack, is now invited to the U.S. This is a significant diplomatic defeat for India.” The opposition argues that Pakistan’s recent successes, including securing key positions in the UN Security Council's Taliban Sanctions Committee and Counter-Terrorism Committee—despite India’s strong objections—highlight India’s diplomatic shortcomings. Pakistan’s narrative that it is a victim of terrorism, rather than a sponsor, has gained traction, undermining India’s efforts to portray it as a hub of terrorism.
Moreover, during the conflict, Pakistan secured significant international loans: $1 billion from the IMF, a partnership framework with the World Bank, and $800 million from the Asian Development Bank. India repeatedly raised concerns that these funds could be misused to fuel terrorism, but its objections were overlooked, underscoring the limitations of its diplomatic outreach.
Additionally, India failed to rally major global powers, including UN Security Council permanent members, against Pakistan. While Israel and France supported India’s right to self-defense, they also urged restraint and de-escalation. Pakistan’s use of Chinese fighter jets, missiles, and Turkish drones during the four-day conflict further highlighted India’s inability to isolate Pakistan, despite its G20 success claims.
The opposition also notes that within 24 hours of India’s delegations meeting Kuwaiti officials, Kuwait lifted a 19-year visa ban on Pakistani citizens, opening its labor market to Pakistanis and creating new competition for Indian workers. This move is seen as another diplomatic setback.
Critics argue that Modi’s government has used foreign policy for domestic political gains, eroding India’s credibility. The opposition contends that India’s “zero tolerance” policy on terrorism is no longer taken seriously by Western nations. Despite India’s insistence that the ceasefire was at Pakistan’s request and not due to third-party mediation, former U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed credit, stating nine times between May 12 and June 5, 2025, that he facilitated the ceasefire by leveraging trade deals.
Modi has not directly refuted Trump’s claims, but Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, through his aide Yuri Ushakov, acknowledged Trump’s role, adding to India’s diplomatic embarrassment. India has long opposed third-party mediation in its disputes with Pakistan, making these claims particularly contentious.
The opposition’s demand for a special parliamentary session to address the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor has gone unheeded, further fueling criticism. While Modi’s government may not feel obligated to respond, the mounting questions about India’s diplomatic strategy remain unanswered, casting a shadow over its global standing.
Following the Pahalgam attack and India’s retaliatory Operation Sindoor targeting Pakistan, India’s diplomatic maneuvers appear to have fallen short of expectations. Seven multi-party delegations, including former diplomats, visited 33 countries, including the European Union, to highlight Pakistan’s role in terrorism. However, Munir’s invitation to the U.S. suggests that India’s narrative failed to sway American policymakers.
General Kurilla’s statement emphasized Pakistan’s role in countering ISIS-Khorasan, noting, “Pakistan has consistently been a partner in the fight against terrorism.” This places India and Pakistan on the same footing in the U.S.’s counterterrorism strategy, a stance that contradicts India’s position. The Trump administration’s apparent dismissal of India’s narrative has added to the diplomatic challenges.
Notably, Kurilla’s comments came at a time when India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, speaking in Brussels, criticized the West for equating India and Pakistan in the fight against terrorism. He remarked, “If some still don’t see the danger, they will regret it one day. Terrorism will bite them too.” Referencing Osama bin Laden, Jaishankar questioned why the al-Qaeda leader felt safe living near Pakistani military bases for years, emphasizing that the issue transcends the India-Pakistan conflict and centers on terrorism itself.
Despite India’s efforts to garner international support through its delegations, the opposition Congress party has labeled these initiatives a “colossal failure.” Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate pointed out that Pakistan continues to secure representation in international forums and substantial loans. She noted, “Modi has been in power for 11 years and visited 90 countries, yet his diplomacy has yielded nothing for India.” Pakistan faced no direct condemnation for the Pahalgam attack, and no country strongly backed India’s stance.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh also took to X, stating, “Munir, who made provocative remarks before the Pahalgam attack, is now invited to the U.S. This is a significant diplomatic defeat for India.” The opposition argues that Pakistan’s recent successes, including securing key positions in the UN Security Council's Taliban Sanctions Committee and Counter-Terrorism Committee—despite India’s strong objections—highlight India’s diplomatic shortcomings. Pakistan’s narrative that it is a victim of terrorism, rather than a sponsor, has gained traction, undermining India’s efforts to portray it as a hub of terrorism.
Moreover, during the conflict, Pakistan secured significant international loans: $1 billion from the IMF, a partnership framework with the World Bank, and $800 million from the Asian Development Bank. India repeatedly raised concerns that these funds could be misused to fuel terrorism, but its objections were overlooked, underscoring the limitations of its diplomatic outreach.
Additionally, India failed to rally major global powers, including UN Security Council permanent members, against Pakistan. While Israel and France supported India’s right to self-defense, they also urged restraint and de-escalation. Pakistan’s use of Chinese fighter jets, missiles, and Turkish drones during the four-day conflict further highlighted India’s inability to isolate Pakistan, despite its G20 success claims.
The opposition also notes that within 24 hours of India’s delegations meeting Kuwaiti officials, Kuwait lifted a 19-year visa ban on Pakistani citizens, opening its labor market to Pakistanis and creating new competition for Indian workers. This move is seen as another diplomatic setback.
Critics argue that Modi’s government has used foreign policy for domestic political gains, eroding India’s credibility. The opposition contends that India’s “zero tolerance” policy on terrorism is no longer taken seriously by Western nations. Despite India’s insistence that the ceasefire was at Pakistan’s request and not due to third-party mediation, former U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed credit, stating nine times between May 12 and June 5, 2025, that he facilitated the ceasefire by leveraging trade deals.
Modi has not directly refuted Trump’s claims, but Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, through his aide Yuri Ushakov, acknowledged Trump’s role, adding to India’s diplomatic embarrassment. India has long opposed third-party mediation in its disputes with Pakistan, making these claims particularly contentious.
The opposition’s demand for a special parliamentary session to address the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor has gone unheeded, further fueling criticism. While Modi’s government may not feel obligated to respond, the mounting questions about India’s diplomatic strategy remain unanswered, casting a shadow over its global standing.
