Will all-party delegation strengthen India’s stance or weaken its position?

Right or wrong, great powers — and under Prime Minister Narendra Modi India claims to be one — do not send all-party delegations abroad to rationalise their action

Great powers, and under Prime Minister Narendra Modi India claims to be one, do not send all-party delegations abroad to rationalise their action, right or wrong.

Russia did not do so to justify the invasion of Ukraine; the United States did not either after the invasion of Iraq. Even the current Indian government’s role-model, Israel, did not feel the need to rationalise the invasion of Gaza to the world by sending all-party delegations.

If Pakistan is sending a delegation under Bilawal Bhutto, to justify its actions or complain against India to the world, let it do so. India should have restricted itself to normal diplomatic communication instead of going into propaganda mode.

The seven all-party delegations to 32 countries will be nothing more than a giant public relations exercise to showcase India standing united behind the Modi government’s narrative of the military conflict with Pakistan. Will the delegations be able to influence a shift in assessments that the global community has already made of the events of the first fortnight of May 2025?

All the countries being visited have diplomatic missions in New Delhi. The external affairs minister or the foreign secretary could have easily briefed their heads of mission about India’s position.

So, why did it become necessary to send MPs and retired diplomats as spokespersons of the Indian government on Pakistan-inspired terror?

The Modi government knows that while the world condemned the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, very few countries directly blamed Pakistan for it, and probably thought India had jumped the gun by ‘punishing’ Pakistan through airstrikes on terrorist hubs on the night of May 6 and 7.

Only the unrecognised government of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Israel blamed Pakistan for the Pahalgam strike. Iran emphasised the need for stronger regional co-operation against terrorism, and France condoled Phalagam while affirming it stood with India against terrorism. The G7 foreign ministers from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the US, and the European Union issued a joint statement condemning the attack, urging India and Pakistan to de-escalate tensions. However, they stopped short of blaming Pakistan directly or indirectly.

The rare display of political unity projected by the composition of these delegations is expected to convey the message that on foreign policy and national security India stands united; that its stand on zero-tolerance of terrorism transcends the political divide within the country; and that the government’s narrative of Operation Sindoor and its aftermath is accepted uncritically by all. As a corollary, it also showcases the Modi regime’s political stability.

Will an all-party delegation change the perspective of key Indian strategic partners, present and prospective United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members (to pre-empt Pakistan, a member of the council, misusing the forum) and the EU headquarters?

Instead, it is quite possible that the narrative will get out of control and could end up reinforcing perspectives that India does not accept. When asked questions about the reasons for Pakistan-inspired terrorism, can discussion on the Kashmir issue be avoided? And will that not facilitate its internationalisation?

Will they be able to provide evidence that the terrorists who struck in Pahalgam were indeed Pakistani citizens, or will they ask the world to take their word for it? Will these delegations be able to talk about the military losses of India, including fighter aircraft it allegedly lost? Opaqueness, both domestic and international, can weaken the impact of the diplomatic blitz being attempted.

Already Operation Sindoor has led to the hyphenation of Pakistan and India in the eyes of the world. Harping on Pakistan being a rogue state responsible for India's woes in Kashmir, would further underline this framework.

Can the articulate Shashi Tharoor, leader of the delegation to the US, tell the Donald Trump administration that India thinks that it was not their president who facilitated the India-Pakistan ceasefire, but that it followed from Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations suing for peace?

Since dialogue is a two-way process, the Indian delegations will hear advice on exercising restraint, giving diplomacy a chance, and a push for starting a dialogue with Pakistan, including on the Indus Waters Treaty. These admonishments should be addressed to the Modi government and not the Opposition members of the delegations.

Possibly the best outcome of the delegations for the Modi regime will be a domestic one in serving to neutralise the Opposition’s criticism.

It is shocking that the Opposition parties did not consult each other before agreeing to send their MPs as the government’s emissaries. Perhaps they anticipated public pressure if they refused.

Instead of focusing on the unanswered questions about intelligence failure and lack of security surrounding the Pahalgam terror strike, and the military conflict that ensued, the Congress got embroiled in internecine battles within, opposing the inclusion of Tharoor and Manish Tewari instead of the party’s nominees. The issue that should have been used to criticise the Modi government became a factional issue of the Congress. Meanwhile, the agency responsible for the intelligence failure, the Intelligence Bureau, saw its director being rewarded with yet another extension.

By attenuating their criticism at a crucial time, the Opposition may never be able to question the Modi government’s claims of deterring terrorism or the consequences of its new doctrine that every act of terror will be considered an act of war.

If everyone — especially MPs cutting across political lines — is standing behind the government’s narrative, then what will the special session of Parliament or a discussion on the Pahalgam tragedy and Operation Sindoor achieve? The Opposition will have already become a stakeholder in the official narrative of the government. As a consequence, its leverage in Parliament to question the Modi government’s strategy and political messaging through Operation Sindoor will diminish.

How far the Opposition can overcome this self-inflicted wound and be able to convey to the public that its support for the government’s foreign policy is distinct from critiquing the government for domestic accountability, remains uncertain.

Modi who was on the backfoot globally (for military aggressiveness) and domestically among his supporters (ironically for not being aggressive enough), will have diverted the public narrative. This may prevent close scrutiny of Operation Sindoor by Parliament as well as the path his government has embarked on through its new doctrine against terrorism.

 Bharat Bhushan is a New Delhi-based journalist.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.