Copyright Infringement not intended

Context:

The 22nd of April terror incident in Pahalgam has brought attention to the global divide in the fight against terrorism, especially in regard to Pakistan's behaviour towards India.  Calls for moderation were just as common as international criticism, highlighting how disjointed the war against terror is on a global scale.

The Shattered Illusion of a Unified Anti-Terror Front

• Following the Pahalgam incident, world powers made statements that were, at best, diplomatically cautious and, at worst, ethically ambiguous.
• Calls for restraint from the United States, the European Union, and Russia effectively equated the victim (India) with the perpetrator (Pakistan), diluting the moral clarity required for a resolute anti-terrorism stance.
• This is a dramatic contrast to the early 2000s, when the global community, inspired by the 9/11 attacks, stood unified in a 'zero tolerance' response to terrorism.
• Shifting global agendas contribute to the loss of this common will.
• With ongoing battles in Ukraine, Gaza, and across West Asia, there is little enthusiasm for fresh conflicts, particularly in Asia.
• In this atmosphere, India's security concerns are frequently overshadowed by broader fears of regional escalation, particularly given Pakistan's use of its nuclear status to avoid decisive international action.

What does the Pahalgam terror incident tell us about the global struggle against terrorism?

• Fragmentation and Hypocrisy in Global Anti-Terrorist Stand: The unified global position established after 9/11 has deteriorated; countries increasingly perceive terrorism through selective lenses based on their strategic interests. While the Pahalgam attack was plainly a terrorist crime targeting Hindu pilgrims, the EU declined to refer to it as a "terror attack" and instead used ambiguous diplomatic terminology, demonstrating diplomatic double standards.
• The "Your Terrorist vs My Terrorist" mindset prevails: Different regions prioritise different types of terrorism, hindering a coordinated global response. For example, the United States focuses on REMVE (racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism), whereas Canada dismisses pro-Khalistan threats to India, citing freedom of expression.
• Global Inaction Against State-Sponsored Terrorism: Despite substantial evidence of Pakistan's involvement in cross-border terrorism, major powers are reluctant to take real action for fear of geopolitical repercussions. For example, China has blocked UN sanctions against terrorists operating in Pakistan, while the West prioritises "regional stability" over punishing the perpetrators.

How has Pakistan's involvement in terrorism impacted its relations with India and the UN?

• Terror acts blamed on Pakistan-based groups have stalled peace talks and resulted in diplomatic isolation. For example, following the 2019 Pulwama attack, India revoked Pakistan's Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status and stopped diplomatic discussions.
• Global Censure and Blacklisting Threats by the UN and FATF: International watchdogs such as the United Nations and the Financial Action Task Force have regularly accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorist networks. For example, in 2018, the FATF greylisted Pakistan owing to insufficient action against terror financing, lowering its worldwide financial credibility.
• Reduced Legitimacy in Global Forums: Its credibility in the UN is harmed by its ambivalence towards terrorist groups, which weakens its argument on Kashmir and other matters. For example, India has frequently thwarted Pakistan's attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue at the UN by underscoring its support for cross-border terrorism.

The Double Standard Faced by India

Solidarity and Conditional Sympathy

• India's experience with cross-border terrorism, particularly from Pakistan, has elicited conditional compassion and cautions rather than solidarity.
• The concept of regional stability is frequently used to coerce India into restraint, even when its citizens are the victims.
• Ironically, the same Western countries who back Ukraine's resistance to nuclear-armed Russia are reluctant to support India's right to defend itself against a nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Little acknowledgement of Hinduphobia

• The Pahalgam attack, in which Hindus were allegedly targeted based on their religion, illustrates another aspect of global apathy.
• While Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, and Christianophobia are publicly and rightfully denounced, instances of Hinduphobia, such as this incident, are given little to no attention.
• This silence is exacerbated by occurrences such as the vilification of US presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy for his Hindu faith, which demonstrate the marginalisation of non-Abrahamic religions in worldwide discussions on religious freedom.
• Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, made a remarkable exception by directly acknowledging the religious nature of the Pahalgam incident, calling it a horrible Islamist terrorist attack.
• Her approach contrasts with the larger diplomatic hedging observed elsewhere.

Way forward

• Despite its diplomatic isolation in this setting, India does not lack leverage.
• It has the chance, and even the requirement, to rethink its strategy. Domestically, this entails maintaining vigilance and increasing counterterrorism measures.
• Internationally, India must step up its anti-religiophobia effort, particularly in areas where non-Abrahamic faiths are under-represented.
• India's geopolitical strategy should also change.
• The decision to delay the Indus Waters Treaty and challenge Pakistan's narrative at the UN Security Council indicates a more confrontational stance.
• While Pakistan's attempts to internationalise the Kashmir problem through emergency UNSC sessions have generally failed, India's ability to maintain international support is dependent on diplomatic skill and the strategic use of its global connections.
• Furthermore, India should use its links with significant Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which are undergoing internal reforms and could influence Pakistan's attitude.
• India's multi-alignment policy must produce visible diplomatic benefits, particularly in the area of counterterrorism.

Practice Questions Q. Evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its associated bodies in addressing and mitigating this threat at the international level.