Mentor’s Comment:  The Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 has once again revealed the lack of unity in the global fight against terrorism, as well as Pakistan’s tendency to use terrorism whenever there is a possibility of peace returning to Jammu and Kashmir. Although many countries have condemned the attack, they have also urged both India and Pakistan to show restraint. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio asked both nations to find a peaceful solution that ensures long-term peace and stability in South Asia. U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance expressed hope that India’s reaction would not lead to a larger conflict in the region. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any issues between India and Pakistan should be resolved through political and diplomatic talks. Meanwhile, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, didn’t even describe the incident as a terror attack.

Today’s editorial talks about how the world is not united in fighting terrorism and highlights how Pakistan often uses terrorism as a tool. This topic is useful for GS Paper II (International Relations) and GS Paper III (Internal Security).

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

In the past, there was a strong global consensus and zero tolerance towards terrorism. However, in the case of India, which continues to be a victim of state-sponsored terrorism, the international response often seems to follow a different set of standards.

What does the Pahalgam terror attack reveal about the global fight against terrorism?

• Fragmentation and Hypocrisy in the Global Anti-Terror Stand: The unified global stance post-9/11 has weakened; countries now view terrorism through selective lenses based on their strategic interests. Eg: While the Pahalgam attack was clearly a terrorist act targeting Hindu pilgrims, the EU failed to call it a “terror attack” and instead used vague diplomatic language, showcasing diplomatic double standards.

• “Your Terrorist vs My Terrorist” Mindset Prevails: Different regions prioritize different types of terrorism, undermining a collective global response. Eg: The U.S. focuses on REMVE (racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism), while Canada ignores pro-Khalistan threats against India, citing freedom of expression.

• Global Inaction Against State-Sponsored Terrorism: Despite clear evidence of Pakistan’s role in cross-border terrorism, major powers avoid taking concrete action, fearing geopolitical consequences. Eg: China has blocked UN sanctions against terrorists operating from Pakistani soil, and the West emphasizes “regional stability” over punishing the perpetrator.

Why are global powers urging restraint between India and Pakistan after the attack?

• Fear of Nuclear Escalation in South Asia: Global powers are wary of any confrontation between two nuclear-armed nations, especially in a volatile region. Eg: Despite India’s position as the victim, the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged both India and Pakistan to maintain “long-term peace and regional stability”, placing equal responsibility on both sides.

• Geopolitical Fatigue Due to Multiple Ongoing Conflicts: With active wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and West Asia, there is a limited appetite among global powers for another escalation in Asia. Eg: U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance expressed hope that India’s response would not trigger a regional conflict, reflecting global fatigue and risk-aversion.

• Pakistan’s Manipulative Use of the ‘Nuclear Threat’ Narrative: Pakistan has long used the “nuclear war” bogey to deter international support for strong Indian countermeasures. Eg: Even as Western powers support Ukraine in a war against nuclear-armed Russia, they urge Indian restraint to avoid a similar escalation with Pakistan.

How has Pakistan’s role in terrorism affected its relations with India and the UN?

• Strained Bilateral Relations with India: Terror attacks traced back to Pakistan-based groups have derailed peace processes and led to diplomatic isolation. Eg: After the Pulwama attack (2019), India withdrew the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status from Pakistan and suspended bilateral talks.

• Global Censure and Blacklisting Threats by the UN and FATF: Pakistan has been repeatedly flagged by international watchdogs like the UN and FATF for harbouring terror networks. Eg: In 2018, the FATF grey-listed Pakistan due to insufficient action against terror financing, affecting its global financial credibility.

• Reduced Legitimacy in Global Forums: Its credibility at the UN is undermined by its ambivalence towards terror groups, weakening its case on Kashmir and other issues. Eg: India has consistently blocked Pakistan’s attempts to internationalize the Kashmir issue at the UN by highlighting its support for cross-border terrorism.

Why is there a double standard in addressing terror attacks on Hindus?

• Global Narrative Often Selective Based on Identity Politics: Attacks on Hindus are sometimes downplayed in international media and forums due to fears of appearing biased or anti-minority. Eg: The 2023 Pakistan Hindu temple attacks received minimal global coverage compared to similar attacks on other communities.

• Lack of Institutional Recognition for Hindu Persecution: Unlike other religious groups, Hindus often lack dedicated international forums or recognition as victims of targeted violence. Eg: The Kashmiri Hindu exodus in the 1990s remains largely absent from global human rights discussions, unlike similar ethnic cleansings.

• Geopolitical Considerations Overshadow Justice: Nations avoid condemning attacks on Hindus in countries like Pakistan or Bangladesh to maintain strategic ties, even at the cost of justice. Eg: Western powers rarely impose sanctions or raise strong objections to sectarian violence against Hindus in South Asia.

What actions should India take against state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan? (Way forward)

• Strengthen Diplomatic Pressure through Global Alliances: India should leverage platforms like the UN, G20, and Quad to diplomatically isolate Pakistan and expose its terror links. Eg: After the Uri and Pulwama attacks, India launched diplomatic campaigns leading to Pakistan’s continued presence on the FATF grey list.

• Enhance Intelligence and Surgical Response Capabilities: India must invest in real-time intelligence and conduct targeted counter-terror operations across the Line of Control when credible evidence exists. Eg: The 2016 Surgical Strikes and 2019 Balakot air strikes demonstrated India’s shift to proactive defense strategies.

• Cut Economic and Water Leverage: India can revisit the Indus Waters Treaty and limit trade relations to exert pressure without crossing into full-scale conflict. Eg: Post-Pulwama, India reviewed the Indus treaty and imposed 100% customs duty on Pakistani imports.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now