22 May 2025, NIICE Commentary 11026
Ajith N
On April 22, 2025, a brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam at Jammu & Kashmir claimed 26 lives. The attack was attributed to a Pakistan-based terror group, as The Resistance Front, an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility. Two nuclear nations are in conflict because of the attack. It triggered outrage and grief across India. However, unlike past decades where sudden military escalation or international blame games dominated headlines, India demonstrated a significant move in its foreign policy by exercising its strategic autonomy to globally isolate Pakistan by earning broad international sympathy and political support. India’s ability to earn support from nations with often opposing geopolitical rivals like Saudi Arabia and Iran, the United States and Russia, and others without compromising its independent decision-making made its diplomacy remarkable.
Strategic autonomy in foreign policy means a state's ability to make independent decisions in the international arena and follow its national interests without being entangled by other countries' or any alliances' interests. India’s strategic autonomy is unlike its 1950s non-alignment model. It’s a multi-alignment policy, designed in a way to maximize its national interest while resisting entanglement in rival power politics. In the context of Pahalgam, this doctrine allowed India to avoid any hasty military retaliation and allowed it to gather international support.
Saudi Arabia and Iran: Rivals United in Delhi
The most striking demonstration of India’s diplomatic success came in the days following the attack, when two hostile regional rivals like Iran and Saudi Arabia made their back-to-back visits to Delhi during India’s counter-terror operation, dubbed Operation Sindoor. Traditionally, a closer ally of Pakistan due to shared religious ties, Saudi Arabia’s swift condemnation of the attack stunned the world. According to the PIB press release, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman directly conveyed condolences and reaffirmed solidarity with India and condemned terrorism in all forms. The significant achievement was that Saudi Arabia did not issue any parallel statements in support of Pakistan. By that, India successfully dismantled Islamabad’s Islamic solidarity narrative. This pivot wasn’t sudden, but it was built over years of strategic Indian engagement by $100+ billion investment in bilateral trade, including energy, defense, and infrastructure, and shared interests in maritime security and counter-terrorism. Saudi Arabia’s visit to Delhi was symbolic of India’s role as a regional stabilizer and a trusted economic partner, more significant than its Cold War-era image of “non-aligned neutrality.
Iran’s position was more subtle but equally meaningful. Iran issued a strong condemnation of the attack. Moreover, on April 25, the Iranian Foreign Minister had given a call for peace to prevail in the neighborhood in a post on X. He had shared that Tehran stands "ready" to put its good offices in Islamabad and New Delhi to use for forging a "greater understanding at this difficult time". India’s diplomacy has historically balanced ties with Iran, even during Western sanctions. India invested in the Chabahar Port and offered humanitarian aid whenever needed. In 2025, these moves paid off. Iran’s support for India came despite Operation Sindoor occurring during improved Indo-U.S. cooperation. India managed to get the goodwill from both Tehran and Riyadh concurrently. It’s a rare achievement in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
The Great Powers: U.S. and Russia on the Same Page
The U.S. reaction to the Pahalgam attack was measured but firm. President Donald Trump expressed condolences, while Vice President J.D. Vance, who was visiting India during the incident, explicitly called for Pakistan to act against terror groups operating on its soil. Importantly, the U.S. calls for peace and de-escalation, unlike it had in previous Indo-Pak tensions. It facilitated intelligence sharing with Indian agencies. Strategic autonomy allowed India to cooperate on security with the U.S. while retaining defense ties with Russia and oil ties with Iran, a balancing act no Western ally could have pulled off.
Russia’s response showed Cold War sentiments of Indo-Soviet friendship. President Putin condemned the attack as a “barbaric terrorist attack,” reconfirming support for India’s internal security measures. Despite facing its own isolation in the West over the Ukraine-Russia war, Russia continued defense exports like the S-400 to India and backed India diplomatically at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS, opposing Pakistan’s calls for third-party mediation.
Multilateral Maneuvers
India’s success wasn’t just bilateral. In multilateral forums like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which usually supports Pakistan diplomatically, it now remains divided, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE avoiding support for Pakistan’s Kashmir rhetoric. Meanwhile, OIC’s press release on the issue was criticized by India. The UN Security Council (UNSC) unanimously condemned the Pahalgam terror attack and dubbed it a "reprehensible act of terrorism" and called for the perpetrators and their sponsors to be brought to justice. In the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the African Union, India’s development diplomacy gave it the credibility to build consensus on counterterrorism. In the G7 nations, only Canada kept silent on this issue but its opposition party stood with India. India has appointed 7 delegates to different countries, including Malaysia, to carry India's strong message of zero tolerance against terrorism to the world.
1971 vs. 2025: A Tale of Two Diplomatic Strategies
The global diplomatic landscape that surrounded the 1971 Indo-Pak War was totally different from the one India faced after the 2025 Pahalgam attack. In 1971, India trusted heavily in its alliance with the Soviet Union and undertook a military intervention that led to the creation of Bangladesh. The United States, aligned with Pakistan as part of its Cold War strategy, sent the USS Enterprise 7th Fleet into the Bay of Bengal in clear-cut support for Islamabad. Saudi Arabia and Iran, too, leaned toward Pakistan, and the broader Islamic world stayed behind it.
After the 2025 attack, India opted not for any hasty military escalation but for diplomatic isolation of Pakistan. Strategic autonomy allowed India to gather support from both traditional allies and former adversaries. The United States subtly aligned with India by refusing to ask for restraint initially and instead urging Pakistan to act against terror groups. Russia, a consistent supporter, reaffirmed India’s right to self-defense. Most notably, Saudi Arabia and Iran, traditional allies of Pakistan, both condemned the attack and made symbolic high-level visits to Delhi, standing with India. In 1971, the effort relied on battlefield success, but 2025 was a masterclass in diplomatic statecraft, showing that India had transitioned from a reactive power to a globally engaged leader capable of shaping narratives through strategic autonomy.
Conclusion
India’s response to the Pahalgam attack in 2025 was not only defined by war but also by restraint, resolve, and realpolitik. Through its carefully standardized diplomacy, India drew Riyadh and Tehran to Delhi within days. It secured multilateral condemnation of Pakistan-backed terrorism. It protected its economic interests while leading a moral charge against extremism. This was the strategic autonomy of a 2025 India, one that no longer needed a bloc to assert itself internationally but could exercise its partnerships like pedals in a geopolitical machine. In 2025, India isolated Pakistan not only by the shock of the abeyance of the Indus Water Treaty and surgical strike but also by reason and reach.
Ajith N is a Research Intern at NIICE and is currently pursuing his M.A. in International Relations at Loyola College, Chennai, India.
