The Hindu Editorial Analysis
11 June 2025
The Hazards of Going Global on India-Pakistan Issues
(Source – The Hindu, National Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS Paper 2: International Relations – Bilateral relations, India and its neighborhood, Role of international institutions
Context
The editorial evaluates the diplomatic fallout of Operation Sindoor and subsequent attempts to globalize India-Pakistan issues, especially terrorism and Jammu & Kashmir, arguing that multilateralizing these issues may backfire due to structural bias, procedural dilution, and political fatigue in global institutions.
Introduction
India’s core issues with Pakistan—terrorism and Jammu & Kashmir—have long been treated as bilateral matters. However, attempts to escalate these to global or multilateral platforms risk weakening India’s own positions due to international inertia, outdated UN mandates, and procedural complexities.
Key Issues Highlighted in the Editorial
1. Outdated UN Framing and Structural Bias
- UN’s map inscriptions and official records still reflect J&K as a disputed territory, causing confusion.
- Most countries cite the UN framework and hesitate to endorse India’s current position unless revised formally.
- The Simla Agreement (1972) frames J&K as a bilateral issue, but UN language predates this and still influences global narratives.
2. Terrorism and the “Freedom Fighter” Dilemma
- The UN’s refusal to clearly define terrorism—due to geopolitical conflicts—creates space for states like Pakistan to claim strategic legitimacy for cross-border militancy.
- India’s push to designate terrorists is often vetoed or diluted, reducing diplomatic effectiveness.
3. Weak Multilateral Tools
- UN bodies like the Security Council and Counter-Terrorism Committee require consensus, making action sluggish and watered down.
- Legal and diplomatic hesitations at the UN can delay or derail action, as seen in the Afghanistan withdrawal by the U.S.
Case Study: Operation Sindoor’s Global Fallout
- India’s briefings to UN and foreign diplomats about Operation Sindoor (post-Pahalgam attack) often got entangled with Pakistan’s counter-narratives.
- Pakistan successfully shifted the narrative to J&K as a disputed territory, weakening focus on terrorism.
- Many countries sought neutrality by referring to the UN’s own maps or resolutions, which India no longer aligns with.
The Risk of Internationalizing J&K and Terrorism
| Argument | Risks |
|---|---|
| Globalize Kashmir | Revives pre-Simla narratives; dilutes India’s claim of sovereignty. |
| Terrorism at UNSC | Faces vetoes, definitional disputes, inconsistent enforcement. |
| Raising in Human Rights Forums | Opens India to reciprocal criticism on internal matters. |
What Should India Do? – Editorial’s Recommendations
- Stick to Bilateralism
- Reinforce the Simla Agreement, keeping J&K off multilateral agendas.
- Avoid Overhyping UN Endorsements
- As shown in Afghanistan, UN support may not translate into concrete action.
- Focus on Direct Action and Coalitions
- Use coalitions of the willing for counter-terrorism (like FATF, QUAD, G20 support on terror financing).
- Improve regional narratives through SAARC or bilateral pacts.
- Reform the Narrative
- India should de-hyphenate Pakistan in global forums and not seek equal recognition of both sides.
Conclusion
India must be cautious in pushing bilateral disputes to international platforms. In a world governed by strategic interests over moral clarity, globalizing the India-Pakistan issue risks neutralizing India’s hard-earned gains. India’s strength lies in its strategic autonomy, strong bilateral diplomacy, and consistent internal resolve.