 "Tharoor vs Bilawal Bhutto: India’s long game and Pakistan’s domestic compulsions in battle of diplomacy")
In a diplomatic blitz, India and Pakistan dispatched high-profile delegations to the United States, and other countries as well, to present their narratives following last month’s military clashes over four days before Islamabad requested New Delhi for a no-attack understanding. India’s delegation was led by opposition politician and former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor , while Pakistan’s was headed by its former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.
They presented contrasting narratives. India emphasised Pakistan’s alleged sponsorship of terrorism and highlighted Islamabad’s role in cross-border terror attacks , not just in Pahalgam where tourists were targeted leading to the massacre of 26 people, but for decades as part of its policy of “bleeding India to death through a thousand cuts”.
Pakistan, on the other hand, ironically portrays itself as a peaceful victim of Indian aggression and stresses the need for dialogue.
What Shashi Thahoor said to the Pakistan delegation
In an interaction at the Indian Embassy in Washington DC, he said, “This [Pakistan] delegation is going around saying we are also victims of terrorism, we have lost more lives to terrorism than India has. We turn around and say — whose fault is that?”
Tharoor said, “As Hillary Clinton famously said 10 years ago, ‘You can’t breed vipers in your backyard and expect them to bite only your neighbours’. That’s why they [Pakistan] are now getting terrorists attacked by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, but who created the Taliban from which the Tehrik-i-Taliban broke off? We all know the answer to that, so let Pakistan look inside it and let it do some serious interior reflection before it goes around pleading innocence and deniability and everything else.”
Contrasting approaches, differing motivations
India’s multiparty approach projects unity. India’s delegation, including prominent opposition figures, signals a united front domestically, strengthening the credibility of its message abroad. This contrasts with Pakistan’s more fragmented political representation and underscores the Modi government’s confidence in its narrative.
Pakistan’s domestic vulnerabilities were on display in its diplomatic moves . Led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Pakistan’s diplomatic campaign is driven in large part by its fragile domestic political standing. The government in Islamabad faces low popularity, and hence, it is leveraging international forums to portray itself as a victim of Indian aggression and to seek global mediation on Kashmir — a position firmly rejected by India.
The selective composition of Pakistan’s delegations, which exclude major opposition parties like Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), further reveals internal political calculations. Reports suggest that former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan — known to have closer ties with Taliban groups, earning him a nickname of ‘Taliban Khan’ — remains a popular choice for the voters though his party, PTI, stays banned from elections.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsAlso, India has dispatched seven delegations to 33 countries, including unlikely venues like Bogotá and Ljubljana, reflecting a global campaign to build support. Pakistan is sending two delegations to a handful of capitals including Washington DC, London, and Brussels.
How much of it is due to domestic political motivations?
Both governments aim to bolster domestic support by showing active international engagement. India’s multiparty delegation projects national unity; Pakistan seeks to counter its low popularity at home.
The narrative battle is aimed at domestic audiences as both countries are acutely aware that much of the diplomatic effort is designed to bolster public support at home. India’s government uses the campaign to reinforce nationalist credentials and demonstrate proactive leadership, while Pakistan attempts to rally domestic sympathy by portraying itself as unfairly targeted.
The success of the outcome depends on domestic perception. Each government aims to convince its population that the diplomatic campaign was successful, influencing future public support and policy directions. India has provided evidence for what it is briefing nations in its diplomatic outreach. Pakistan has at best referred to unverified claims made on social media.
India’s strategic long game
While Pakistan demands resumption of the Indus Waters Treaty suspended by India after the conflict, citing water security concerns, India seeks to reduce Pakistan’s access to bilateral and multilateral aid until Islamabad takes meaningful anti-terrorism actions. India also calls on Pakistan’s donors to reduce aid until Islamabad takes stronger action against terrorism.
Their strategic goals also seem to be different. India wants to refocus international attention on terrorism rather than nuclear escalation fears, which have dominated since earlier conflicts. Pakistan seems to aim to leverage global concerns over nuclear risks to gain sympathy and mediation support.
India is using the diplomatic blitz not just to respond to the four-day military conflict that happened in May but to systematically raise the costs for Pakistan over its failure to curb terrorism. By deploying seven delegations to 33 countries — including unlikely venues — India aims to build sustained international pressure on Islamabad to act decisively against anti-India militant groups and infrastructure on its soil. This reflects a broader effort to shift global focus back onto terrorism, countering the narrative that prioritises fears of nuclear escalation.
India’s sustained diplomatic offensive reflects a calculated, long-term strategy to isolate Pakistan internationally and pressure it into compliance on terrorism issues, while Pakistan’s campaign reveals its domestic political fragility and reliance on external validation. The ultimate success of these efforts will be judged largely by their impact on domestic public opinion in both countries.
But there are challenges, for India as well
India has gained and can expect wider support over terrorism concerns but alleviating nuclear fears remains a challenge especially against the backdrop of Trump’s one-sided repeated claims of stopping an atomic war. Pakistan faces skepticism due to India’s strategic importance globally and resistance to international mediation on Kashmir.
Challenges for Pakistan’s global pitch are glaring. Despite Pakistan’s efforts, India’s growing global stature as a strategic and commercial partner limits Islamabad’s ability to gain widespread international backing for mediation or to deflect attention from terrorism concerns.
The contrast is too sharp to be glossed over. India is playing a patient and strategic diplomatic long game aimed at exposing Pakistan’s unabashed terror policy. On the other hand, Pakistan’s moves look heavily influenced by internal political needs against the backdrop of the battering its armed forces received during Operation Sindoor.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
