India’s fight against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism remains largely solitary despite multilateral engagements. Regional platforms like SCO, SAARC, and BIMSTEC lack enforcement strength, often hindered by China’s shielding of Pakistan. India’s most effective counterterror measures stem from bilateral partnerships. A global coalition is essential to pressure Pakistan and uphold regional security norms.
Highlights
- India’s foreign policy is shaped by its unilateral battle against Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism.
- Regional mechanisms have repeatedly failed to support India’s efforts, especially in acknowledging terrorist incidents like the Pahalgam attack. SCO, SAARC, and BIMSTEC have structures (e.g., SCO’s RATS, SAARC Convention on Terrorism) but suffer from weak enforcement and political manipulation.
- China’s influence prevents decisive action, notably shielding Pakistan from accountability through vetoes and diplomatic cover. China’s consistent support for Pakistan diplomatically frustrates India's counterterrorism initiatives.
- India has achieved notable gains via bilateral counterterrorism cooperation with Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka.
- Bilateral efforts with Pakistan have failed due to its military’s use of terrorism as state policy, evident in the collapse of the India-Pakistan JTM after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
- Despite limitations, India utilizes forums like QUAD and BRICS to articulate its stance and push for counterterror coalitions.
- International actors must hold Pakistan accountable to uphold peace and security in South Asia. Moves like the IMF bailout during military operations and high-profile receptions for Pakistani military leaders undermine India’s strategic trust.
- India believes terrorism sponsorship must carry costs; Pakistan’s choice to prioritize military dominance over democracy may incur long-term consequences.
India’s foreign policy continues to be shaped by its enduring struggle against Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism—a challenge that remains largely unilateral despite the presence of bilateral and regional security frameworks. The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Defence Ministers’ summit in Qingdao underscores this stark reality: India’s effort to draw attention to the Pahalgam terrorist attack was met with silence, ultimately prompting its refusal to endorse the joint statement. This episode reveals how regional multilateral platforms are often manoeuvred to protect the strategic interests of dominant member states and their allies.
China’s consistent patronage of Pakistan plays a crucial role in shielding its alleged complicity in destabilising India through terrorist proxies. Beyond ideological alignment, Beijing's support serves a broader strategic calculus. The India-Pakistan conflict allows China to occupy a unique geopolitical space—presenting itself as a conciliator and a champion of regional peace, while quietly preserving the status quo that undermines India’s security imperatives. By reinforcing Pakistan’s position in forums like the SCO, China not only deflects criticism from its ally but also curtails India’s ability to shape regional discourse on terrorism.
India’s counterterrorism posture, as reiterated by the Defence Minister at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, underscores a firm and assertive doctrine: “We have the right to defend ourselves against terrorism. Epicentres of terror are no longer safe—we will not hesitate to target them.” This message reflects not just operational resolve, but a strategic recalibration of India’s regional engagement.
China’s Patronage of Pakistan: Shielding Terrorism
The summit in Qingdao offered a telling glimpse into the limitations of multilateral platforms. Despite India’s proactive stance, persistent stonewalling—most notably China’s hesitation to recognise Pakistani hand behind the Pahalgam attack and its repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council to shield Jaish-e-Mohammad and Masood Azhar—reveals a geopolitical fault line. Beijing’s unwavering support for Islamabad has effectively turned counterterrorism into a battlefield of influence, rather than a shared security mandate.
In light of the entrenched China-Pakistan nexus, India must shift its focus toward building coalitions of convergence with like-minded countries—those willing to call out state-sponsored terrorism unequivocally and uphold the norms of international security. This networked approach will not only counterbalance the inertia in regional organizations but also expand India’s diplomatic bandwidth in global counterterrorism discourse.
Multilateral Mechanisms: Symbolism vs. Substance
India has consistently sought to address the threat of terrorism through regional multilateral institutions. Yet, despite structural mechanisms such as the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)—tasked with intelligence sharing and coordinated action against terrorism, separatism, and extremism—these forums have proven largely ineffectual in addressing the core threats emanating from within the region. The SCO, like SAARC before it, often stalls at rhetorical commitments.
The SAARC Convention on Terrorism and its Additional Protocol were crafted to facilitate collaboration, but loopholes and conditionalities embedded within the extradition provisions have rendered them virtually defunct. Instances where fugitives wanted by one state are arrested under unrelated provisions in another country illustrate how procedural ambiguities undermine regional efforts. Even BIMSTEC, which has its own anti-terrorism convention, lacks enforcement muscle and strategic cohesion.
Bilateral Counterterrorism Successes
In practice, India's most productive counterterrorism engagements have emerged from bilateral arrangements—especially with states that do not possess strategic interests in shielding terrorists or insurgent networks targeting their neighbours. However, this bilateral track has repeatedly failed in India’s engagement with Pakistan. Notably, the India-Pakistan Joint Terror Mechanism (JTM), established to build trust and coordinate efforts, collapsed following the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Ironically, the attacks occurred while Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was in Delhi attending a JTM meeting. The subsequent investigation by Islamabad was widely criticized as superficial, with key masterminds released without accountability—raising serious doubts about Pakistan’s credibility and intent.
This pattern is not new. Pakistan’s duplicity dates back to 2004, when President Musharraf assured Prime Minister Vajpayee on the sidelines of the SAARC Summit that Pakistani soil would not be used against India. That promise, too, was quickly broken.
India’s most meaningful progress in combating terrorism and insurgency has been achieved through focused bilateral engagement. Where mutual trust and shared security interests exist, India has leveraged diplomacy, intelligence cooperation, and joint operational mechanisms to dismantle hostile networks.
A case in point: through sustained dialogue with Dhaka, India secured the deportation of Indian insurgents taking refuge in Bangladesh. The Burdwan blast investigation further highlighted the efficacy of bilateral intelligence sharing, unravelling the links to Jamaatul Mujaheedin Bangladesh. Similarly, in coordination with Myanmar, India executed cross-border strikes on insurgent camps—an effort backed by established Defence and Security cooperation that includes real-time information and intelligence exchange.
Sri Lanka, too, benefited from bilateral intelligence sharing with India in its fight against the LTTE. In all these cases, progress was possible because the partner governments did not harbour strategic interests in shielding insurgents or terrorists targeting India.
Pakistan: An Unreliable Partner
By contrast, Pakistan stands as a stark outlier. Its military establishment has historically used terrorism as a strategic tool against India, undermining every attempt at bilateral cooperation. The collapse of the India-Pakistan Joint Terror Mechanism following the 2008 Mumbai attacks—carried out by Pakistani terrorists—exemplifies this failure. The timing was telling: Pakistan’s Foreign Minister was in Delhi attending a JTM meeting as the carnage unfolded. The aftermath brought further disillusionment, with Islamabad’s superficial investigation and the subsequent release of the masterminds raising questions about its sincerity.
Pakistan’s duplicity isn't confined to its dealings with India. Even as a frontline partner in the U.S.-led War on Terror—benefiting from billions in aid and advanced military hardware—it was simultaneously sheltering Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, perilously close to a prestigious military academy in Kakul. This duplicitous posture reveals a deeper structural issue: in a polity where the military overrides civilian authority, terrorism remains embedded as a tool of statecraft
China-Pakistan Nexus: Blocking Global Accountability
The Pakistan–China partnership has become a critical obstacle in India's counterterrorism diplomacy. Beijing’s consistent effort to thwart India’s attempts to designate Pakistan-based terrorist entities—most notably through technical holds and vetoes at the UN—reveals more than just diplomatic alignment; it underscores China's patronage of Pakistan’s proxy warfare strategy against India.
This was glaringly evident in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed the lives of 26 Hindu tourists. China's call for an "impartial investigation as soon as possible" echoed Pakistan’s narrative and deflected attention from the targeted nature of the violence. Far from neutrality, such positioning reflects China's tactical shielding of its “iron-clad” ally while indulging in platitudes about peace and stability in South Asia.
This duality is symptomatic of a deeper strategic design. China's backing of Pakistan, coupled with its ambiguous responses to terrorism, has been a persistent roadblock to any meaningful India–China rapprochement. More than merely supporting its partner, Beijing exploits the India–Pakistan conflict to enhance its own diplomatic leverage—projecting itself as a regional stabilizer while enabling destabilizing actors behind the scenes.
China’s recent push to form alternative regional groupings—including trilateral, quadrilateral, and Indian Ocean cooperation forums—further reveals its intent to dilute India’s influence and constrain its strategic bandwidth. By doing so, China seeks to keep India preoccupied with South Asian primacy rather than emerging as a powerful global actor and a credible voice of the Global South
Building a Global Coalition Against Terror
Multilateral platforms will continue to play an essential role in India’s diplomatic effort to counter terrorism. While unanimity on Pakistan’s culpability may remain elusive—given that national interests often override shared security concerns—these forums provide India with vital space to articulate its position, build normative pressure, and shape the global counterterrorism discourse.
At the ongoing QUAD Summit in Washington, India’s Foreign Minister made this assertion unambiguously: “Victims and perpetrators must never be equated. And India has every right to defend its people against terrorism, and we will exercise that right. We expect our Quad partners to understand and appreciate that.” This declaration wasn’t just rhetorical—it underscored India’s expectation for nuanced solidarity and moral clarity from its strategic partners.
Looking ahead to the BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, India is likely to place counterterrorism cooperation at the heart of its engagement. The presence of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group (CTWG) offers a potential framework, but it must evolve beyond symbolic declarations to coordinated action—especially as India pushes for coalitions of consequence to confront state-sponsored extremism.
Meanwhile, the broader international response to Pakistan’s conduct remains troubling. That an IMF bailout was extended during military operations, or that Field Marshal Asim Munir received a high-profile welcome at the White House, sends ambiguous signals to New Delhi—particularly when both India and the U.S. profess a Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership. For India, genuine strategic partnership must reflect clarity on terrorism: that sponsorship bears a cost, and that moral ambiguity only emboldens actors who exploit instability.
Pakistan’s reliance on terrorism as an instrument of policy comes at a deeper price. While India seeks accountability, Pakistan’s path leads to the further entrenchment of military dominance and the erosion of democratic institutions. If this is the price Pakistan is willing to pay, then international stakeholders must be equally prepared to raise the diplomatic and economic cost of that decision.
Dr Smruti S Pattanaik is Member South Asia Centre and Coordinator, European Centre at MP-IDSA, New Delhi. She is also a Life Member of ICPS. The views expressed here are her own.
Comments