India has now proposed to send a parliamentary delegation to select countries to explain its position on the recent conflict with Pakistan. This outreach aims to justify India’s actions and counter any misinformation in the international arena.
In today’s geo-political landscape, national interest reigns supreme. Lofty ideals like principles and fair play have largely taken a back seat. The international order is increasingly defined by flux—there are no permanent friends or foes, only shifting alliances dictated by strategic and economic considerations.
With the advent of powerful global communication networks, every country is now acutely aware of developments elsewhere. Consequently, the nations that the Indian delegation plans to visit are already well-informed about the situation and India’s narrative. At best, these delegations may receive polite hearings. But the receptivity of foreign governments will largely depend not on the logic of India’s explanation, but on their own relationships and interests with both India and Pakistan.
The global consensus against terrorism is, at least rhetorically, strong. Most countries condemn acts of terror and express concern about nations that offer safe havens to terrorists. Yet, in practice, their positions are guided more by economic ties and strategic partnerships than by moral clarity. A country accused of supporting terrorism may still enjoy lenient treatment if it is deemed useful.
Moreover, countries battling terrorism within their borders often find themselves standing alone. Despite verbal assurances of solidarity, meaningful international support tends to be limited. This leaves affected nations with little choice but to build robust economic, military, and technological capacities to defend themselves. That is the unsentimental reality of global diplomacy.
In this context, the United Nations stands out—unfortunately—for its ineffectiveness. If the UN had played its intended role as a guardian of peace and a forum for just resolution of conflicts, India wouldn’t have found it necessary to undertake such diplomatic missions uninvited. The failure of multilateralism has compelled India to seek bilateral understandings, even if only to prevent the spread of falsehoods.
Sending parliamentary delegations abroad may or may not change minds. But in a world where perception often matters as much as facts, such efforts, however symbolic, become necessary. India’s message must be heard—not because others are asking for it, but because silence could otherwise be filled by distortions.
---
*Trustee, Nandini Voice For The Deprived, Chennai
Comments