Ex-envoy Rajamony questions India's diplomatic success after Op Sindoor

India’s military strike on Pakistan under Operation Sindoor in response to the terror attack in Pahalgam has triggered a complex debate on the success of the country’s diplomatic messaging. While the domestic narrative framed it as a decisive victory, the international reaction has been far more nuanced—and in many cases, muted.

In this wide-ranging conversation, former Indian ambassador Venu Rajamony breaks down the diplomatic fallout, challenges of narrative management, and the dangers of conflating image with strategy.

Is India truly isolated globally following Operation Sindoor?

The idea that India is isolated is an oversimplification. International relations are inherently complex and every country, no matter how small, exercises its own agency. India has always taken strong positions, even if it means standing alone—as we did when refusing to sign the CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty). Isolation isn’t new or necessarily negative.

That said, no country has supported our retaliatory strike on Pakistan after Pahalgam—not even Bhutan, which usually backs India. Pakistan, in contrast, has had public support from Turkey and Azerbaijan, while China took a more diplomatically veiled stance. So while India is not like North Korea, we are indeed standing alone on certain decisions. This underscores the need for a more mature foreign policy debate that accepts geopolitical realities instead of demanding total victories.

Also read: Operation Sindoor debate: How did terrorists come to Pahalgam? Gogoi asks Centre

Have our diplomatic efforts post-attack achieved anything tangible?

Not really. Sending parliamentary delegations abroad may have presented a pluralistic face of India, but it didn’t change global opinion. No country, even allies, endorsed our attack on Pakistan. At best, they issued generic condemnations of terrorism while urging restraint. The world isn't going to back a military response like ours, and expecting them to do so is unrealistic.

Did the military action meet its strategic objectives—especially in terms of deterrence?

Frankly, no. If the goal was to prevent Pakistan from sponsoring terror, we haven’t achieved it. On the contrary, Pakistan seems emboldened. Their elevation of General Asim Munir and their narrative of having stopped India’s advance shows they see it as a stalemate. We’ve demonstrated capability, but not deterrence. The perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack are still at large, and there’s no visible change in Pakistan’s conduct.

Was there any intelligence or strategic failure that led to Pahalgam?

There has been little introspection or public discussion on this. The government hasn’t addressed whether there was an intelligence failure or how exactly the attack occurred. Accountability is missing, both in terms of prevention and post-attack analysis.

Also read: Rajnath Singh on Operation Sindoor: No loss to the Indian military

Was the Opposition co-opted into the government’s diplomatic push?

Yes, and that hurt credibility. Even the inclusion of Shashi Tharoor became a political mess. The Opposition could have negotiated reciprocal commitments—like the assurance of Parliament debates—before joining these delegations. But no such negotiation took place. As a result, the delegations ended up validating the government’s actions without adding meaningful scrutiny.

Should India worry about giving the government a free hand on foreign policy and war?

Absolutely. A so-called “Modi Doctrine” seems to be taking shape—one that permits military retaliation after any terrorist incident. But are we ready for the consequences of perpetual hostilities? Frequent clashes hurt the economy, destabilize border regions, and push us closer to dangerous escalations. We must not let emotion override deliberation.

What about the poor on the frontlines—how are they impacted?

They suffer the most. War isn't a Bollywood drama. As one former army chief said, diplomacy must always be the first solution. Every opportunity for dialogue must be explored before military action. We must ensure we don’t let rogue actors or elements in Pakistan push us into full-scale conflict.

Also read: Opposition’s volte-face on Operation Sindoor debate stuns govt, Lok Sabha Speaker

Is India doing enough to prevent terrorism through internal measures?

No. If the US prevented another 9/11, it's largely by fortifying its intelligence and internal security. India must adopt a “Fortress India” model. Precision strikes are no substitute for domestic preparedness and resilience.

Has the international community re-hyphenated India and Pakistan again?

Yes. Kashmir is back in the global discourse, and India-Pakistan is again seen as a linked equation. While countries are busy with their own crises, President Trump’s repeated claims of mediating the ceasefire have reignited global attention. American pressure did play a role in de-escalation, even if overstated.

Was there any real nuclear threat during the hostilities?

It’s difficult to say. This might be the first time such targeted attacks have occurred between two nuclear states. The absence of direct nuclear threats is reassuring, but there are speculations that Indian missiles may have come close to sensitive Pakistani sites. That alone could’ve triggered US intervention. We must not dismiss the risks of accidental escalation.

Also read: Parliament session: Jaishankar denies Trump’s claim of direct talks with PM Modi

Did India’s focus on domestic image management backfire internationally?

It did. Operation Sindoor was heavily marketed domestically, complete with the Prime Minister naming it and repeated claims of triumph. This overreach led to frustration even among right-wing supporters who expected a “fight to the finish”. The result was contradictory messaging—while diplomacy de-escalated, the domestic narrative demanded total war.

Has Balochistan become a diplomatic liability for India?

Globally, both Kashmir and Balochistan are marginal concerns. Few outside Pakistan and China care about Kashmir. Similarly, Balochistan gets minimal attention. India is in a bind—it can’t criticize Pakistan's suppression in Balochistan nor openly support Baloch nationalists. The safest strategy is to remain quiet and let internal developments in Pakistan unfold.

What happened to backchannel diplomacy on Kashmir?

There have been serious but secret efforts in the past, including track-two diplomacy involving senior officials. However, nothing public has materialized recently. India needs to resume dialogue, especially in Kashmir. Strong-arm tactics alone won’t win hearts and minds. Engagement, patience, and inclusiveness are essential.

Also read: Trump: 'War between India, Pakistan was probably going to end up nuclear'

What role can informal talks with Pakistan play going forward?

A vital one. Even after hostilities, India should reopen secret or informal talks. Persuading Pakistan to stop sponsoring terror and reviving dialogue is the only sustainable path. We’re neighbours with nukes—mutual destruction is a real risk. Dialogue remains the only rational way forward.

Is it harder now to be a diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service?

It’s always been tough, but it’s become harder since 2014. Earlier, diplomats had some autonomy to shape language and tone. Now, directives are more frequent—what to say, what not to tweet, etc. There’s fear, a lack of space, and a growing culture of appeasement. Bureaucrats feel promotions depend on pleasing the top brass. This undermines honest diplomacy.

What’s the biggest diplomatic challenge today?

Maintaining credibility in a world of spin. Diplomats should be honest—if something is indefensible, say so. Don’t lie. If the government’s position is untenable, the only ethical option is to resign. Unfortunately, that space is shrinking. Yet, the core duty of diplomacy remains: avoid war, engage with adversaries, and defend your country with integrity.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)