In the battlefield of geopolitics, words are weapons, narratives are strategies, and perception is power. Diplomacy, at its core, is managing international relations by negotiation, persuasion, and strategic messaging rather than coercion or conflict. It is as much about subtlety as it is about strength. Yet, too often, our approach to diplomacy has been reactive, driven by domestic sentiment rather than strategic foresight.
The Illusion of Preaching to the Choir
Diplomacy is not what happens in televised briefings or the echo chambers of social media. It’s not the foreign minister sermonizing on global platforms, parroting the same grievances we’ve grown used to hearing within our borders. While this rhetoric may resonate with domestic audiences, it lacks traction in the international arena.
The global community, especially in the West, is not swayed by emotionally charged appeals or repeated accusations unless a coherent, consistent, and credible narrative backs these. Our messaging must evolve. It must be more than a lament; it must be a compelling articulation of interests, ethics, and evidence—eloquent, polished, and persuasive.
Pakistan: The Master of Perception Warfare
Despite its economic fragility and internal instability, Pakistan has crafted and projected a remarkably potent narrative. Once widely considered the epicenter of terror networks, it has now repositioned itself as a frontline victim of terrorism. This narrative pivot is no accident—it is a result of sustained, strategic, and often cynical diplomacy.
Pakistan’s information warfare has been sophisticated. They’ve taken a quote from Hillary Clinton—”You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors”—and weaponized it to frame themselves as victims rather than perpetrators. Incidents like the Army Public School massacre, attacks on mosques, and other high-profile terrorist violence on their soil have bolstered the narrative. By highlighting their suffering, Pakistan has successfully blurred the lines between the terrorists it once nurtured and the blowback it now faces.
This repositioning has made Western policymakers more sympathetic. Despite longstanding knowledge of ISI’s complicity with jihadist elements, the prevailing sentiment now increasingly views Pakistan as a state caught in the crosshairs of forces it can no longer control. And that suits their geopolitical goals just fine.
The West’s Convenient Amnesia
It would be naïve to assume that the West’s acceptance of Pakistan’s narrative is accidental. For decades, the West—especially the United States—has had a hand in cultivating Islamist extremism for strategic gains, from the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to proxy forces in Syria. The “War on Terror” has often been more about optics than outcomes.
As a result, when India calls out Pakistan’s role in fostering terrorism, it is brushed aside. Why? Because admitting Pakistan’s culpability would be admitting their own. And the West, still addicted to transactional geopolitics, finds it easier to maintain the illusion of Pakistan as a necessary partner.
The recent $314 million package to maintain Pakistan’s F-16 fleet is a glaring example. While officially touted as a counter-terror investment, it effectively boosts Pakistan’s conventional capability against India. This duplicity cannot be ignored. Add to this the cryptocurrency pipeline allegedly flowing into Pakistan for dubious ends, and the West’s complicity appears less like negligence and more like a calculated choice.
India’s Diplomatic Deficit
India has been outpaced in this domain for all its strategic heft and growing global footprint. We’ve failed to shape the narrative while focusing on military preparedness and border security. Our consistent portrayal of ourselves as victims of cross-border terrorism has grown stale. It lacks nuance and, worse, doesn’t inspire international action.
The real challenge lies in failing to distinguish between the terrorists attacking Pakistan and those attacking India. Though both operate under radical ideologies, their sponsors, objectives, and operational theatres differ. Indian diplomats must highlight how Pakistan has used terror as a state policy—a deliberate, strategic choice, not just a blowback from extremist elements.
Pakistan’s Proxy War: Low-Cost, High-Dividend
By leveraging non-state actors, Pakistan has created a low-cost strategy to keep India militarily and diplomatically engaged. Terror attacks force India to maintain a substantial counter-insurgency grid in Kashmir, draining resources and attention. All this while Pakistan denies state involvement, cloaking the attacks as “freedom struggles” or “jihadist actions.”
They’ve found strategic shelter under the ideological narrative of Islamic solidarity, particularly for the “Kashmiri cause.” This façade has gained traction in parts of the Islamic world and has also found echoes in Western liberal spaces under the guise of human rights discourse.
The Way Forward: Seizing the Narrative Initiative
Indian diplomacy must transition from a defensive stance to an offensive one, not in aggression but in articulation. The National Security Advisor and the Prime Minister’s Office must redefine our approach to narrative construction. We must invest in: –
- Strategic Communication Cells. Dedicated teams trained in information warfare and narrative shaping to pre-empt and counter disinformation.
- Leveraging Diaspora Diplomacy. The Indian diaspora is influential and embedded in the West’s policy-making, media, and academia. This network must be activated to reframe India’s global image and expose Pakistan’s duplicity.
- International Collaborations. Build coalitions with countries similarly affected by proxy terror—Israel, France, the UK, and African nations. Create a united front against state-sponsored terrorism.
- Academic and Cultural Engagement. Fund research, documentaries, and cultural products that expose the ideology behind jihadist terrorism and its state backers.
The Endurance Race, Not the Sprint
Pakistan may have sprinted ahead in the early phase of perception warfare. But this is not a 100-meter dash—it’s a marathon. Narratives evolve, truths emerge, and global patience wears thin for double games. India must play the long game: consistent, principled, and data-driven diplomacy that builds credibility over time.
Every act of terrorism must be linked back to its roots with hard evidence. Every diplomatic forum must be used not for lamentation but for leadership. As an aspiring regional power, India must stop asking for sympathy and start commanding respect.
Pros and Cons of Current Diplomatic Engagement
Pros
- India has maintained a restrained and mature posture, avoiding escalation.
- The international community broadly acknowledges India’s growth as a responsible democratic power.
- Engagement with multilateral forums (G20, Quad, BRICS) has raised India’s global profile.
Cons
- Our narrative remains reactive and lacks the finesse needed for global persuasion.
- Pakistan continues to benefit from Western aid and diplomatic space despite its terror links.
- India’s counter-narrative efforts remain fragmented and underfunded.
Conclusion: Turning the Tide
The battlefield has changed. Bombs and bullets matter less than bandwidth and beliefs. In the information age, wars are won in minds long before they are fought on borders. India has the truth on its side, but truth alone is not enough—it must be told with precision, power, and purpose.
Diplomacy today is about dominating the narrative. If we are to undo Pakistan’s propaganda offensive, we must accept that we are in an endurance race. In the era of information, minds win wars long before borders do.lentless pursuit of the truth. The time to act is now.