How we shrank our friends!

Looks like the Narendra Modi government’s big outreach to rally international support after Operation Sindoor is going nowhere. If the lack of support for India’s narrative before these delegations went out was , the persistence of that cold shoulder is an indictment of both India’s foreign policy during the past 11 years and the diplomatic sagacity of the wise men currently in charge.

Diplomacy is a success if it elicits widespread appreciation. This has clearly not been the case under the present regime, whose outreach has essentially meant promoting one individual who — because of his world view (or lack of it) — has successfully steered India into isolation.

While foreign governments were undoubtedly concerned about India and Pakistan militarily squaring off, their people and their media remained largely absorbed with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s .

There was also the transition in the papacy, not to mention a spate of new trade arrangements, including a reset between Britain and the European Union to ease post-Brexit friction in the movement of goods, services and people.

In such circumstances, a Modi-driven Indian external affairs outreach has been swimming against the tide. In April 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution calling for Israel to be held accountable for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and a cessation of arms supplies to the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). India abstained. Indeed, some Israeli rockets fired into Gaza showed ‘Made in India’ markings.

Last September, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Once again, India sat on the fence.

Misguided by Modi, India finds itself in an inglorious minority in the developing world, where it once provided leadership to the Global South. Notably, 2025 marked the 70th anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru’s stellar role at the Bandung Conference.

Following the recent and relentless bombardment of Gaza by the IDF, with far too many civilian casualties as ever, France and Britain — traditionally strong supporters of Israel — appear to have, for the first time, from Tel Aviv. They could soon become the first among the G7 countries to extend diplomatic recognition to the Palestinian Authority. Even Donald Trump has grown impatient.

Following the cold-blooded killing of tourists in Pahalgam in Kashmir, as India readied for military action against Pakistan, Russia did not endorse Operation Sindoor, nor did it point a finger at Pakistan: it asked India to demonstrate restraint.

While Britain was predictable in asking India to go easy post-Pahalgam, Russia’s position was a sea-change from 1971. Given that, India could reciprocally have urged Moscow to do the same in Ukraine. It didn’t. Of late, Russia has blisteringly bombarded Ukraine, ignoring appeals from European nations and the US for a ceasefire. India has not been among such appellants.

South Block is not without leverage with the Kremlin. Amid Western sanctions imposed on India — following — India’s continued purchase of Russian arms and energy plays a major role in keeping the Russian economy afloat. But India’s Modi-made vulnerability on the international stage, as exposed during the recent fracas with Pakistan, has jolted Russia into caution.

Modi’s leap into the US’s lap immediately upon coming to power also upset Russia, where anger with the West over NATO’s expansion eastward was anyway brewing. Its attitude towards India became business-oriented. China, never a friend, became hostile. Ties with France admittedly deepened; but fell short of serving as a true counterweight to China’s ambitions.

After Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, when the US questioned India’s ongoing and expanding economic ties with Russia, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar reportedly assured Washington that this approach was intended to prevent Moscow from drawing too close to Beijing. The fact is: Russia and China have never been more intimate.

Jaishankar’s smart aleck coinages may impress India’s lapdog media; they may even initially extract the benefit of doubt from his interlocutors; but running with the hare and hunting with the hounds is ultimately a loser’s game.

Seven Indian delegations — mostly composed of sitting MPs, who haven’t the foggiest idea about foreign affairs — have fanned out to various parts of the world to voice their indignation over Pakistan’s export of terrorism to India and to justify Operation Sindoor. They have visited Paris and Rome, with London on the cards. They are yet to meet a cabinet minister, let alone a head of government. But then, it’s one of the best times of the year to holiday on the continent — it’s late spring and the weather so salubrious!

The outreach is nothing but a squandering of Indian taxpayers’ money. It will have no impact whatsoever. What’s new about saying that ‘India remains resolute in its efforts to counter terrorism’ and calls ‘for greater international solidarity on this critical global challenge’?

Modi and Jaishankar have got Indian foreign policy into a thicket. Not a single nation has branded Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism. After the terrorist attack in Mumbai in 2008, the international community not only lined up with India, but helped put Pakistan on the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) watch-list. It demonstrated that penetrative diplomacy is much more impactful than flexing military muscle.

No P5 country endorsed Operation Sindoor, while China noticeably closed ranks with Pakistan. Turkey, a member of the western military alliance, NATO, did the same. Both bolstered the Pakistani military with combat planes, drones and missiles.

Bhutan, India’s closest ally, condemned the Pahalgam incident and sympathised with India. Nepal — one of whose nationals was among the 26 victims — did the same. Demonstrators in Kathmandu handed a protest note to the Pakistani embassy. But neither accused the Pakistani State of being the culprit. Bangladesh was, if anything, unsupportive; Sri Lanka didn’t get involved.

Terrorism is a scourge which few nations subscribe to. No surprise that so many should have stepped forward to denounce the brutal killing of unarmed tourists, and even commiserate with India. However, none supported or encouraged India in its military retaliation against Pakistan. Everyone wants to know: what’s the intelligence on the perpetrators? Was Sindoor the right response? Was anyone connected with Pahalgam actually eliminated in the 6–7 May strikes?

Good foreign policy reduces expenditure on defence and internal security. The cost of both having risen exponentially since 2014 is evidence of Modi and Jaishankar’s shortcomings. There have been two military face-offs with Pakistan under their watch. In 2020, China entered and occupied what was respected as Indian territory in Ladakh since the 1993 Sino-Indian Peace and Tranquillity Treaty. Earlier, in 2017, China attempted a similar intrusion in Doklam near Sikkim.

During Dr Manmohan Singh’s decade as prime minister, there was no armed conflict with either China or Pakistan. Not that he compromised on India’s defence preparedness. Surveillance equipment and combat drones came from Israel. Aircraft, helicopters and anti-ship missiles came, for the first time, from the US. The choice of the French Rafales as the Indian Air Force’s new fighter jets also occurred under Dr Singh.

By comparison, Narendra Modi has spent more money for less value. The price negotiated for the Rafales was significantly higher than agreed upon in the memorandum of understanding between the Manmohan Singh government and Dassault, the company that makes them. This remains a conspicuously unexplored scandal.

Ashis Ray can be followed on X @ashiscray