When I see one western leader after another offering empty condolences for Pahalgam while side-stepping their statesmanlike responsibility to name and shame the global terror sponsor Pakistan, it succinctly captures my sentiment: “India fights terrorism alone, while the U.S. and Europe play both sides for their gain.”
On April 22, the serene meadows of Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam, Kashmir, turned into a killing field. Approximately, 26 people, mostly Hindu tourists seeking solace in the region’s picturesque landscapes, were gunned down in a ruthless attack by The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The brutal attack was meant to tear apart India’s social fabric.
The Pahalgam attack, the deadliest in Kashmir since the 2008 Mumbai carnage, shattered the region’s fragile peace and exposed the unrelenting spectre of cross-border terrorism originating from Pakistan. India’s response, Operation Sindhoor, struck nine terror sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on May 7, signalling a shift from restraint to resolve.
Yet the world’s reaction, or lack of it, reveals a darker truth: the fight against terrorism is being undermined by the cynical, self-serving geopolitics of the west. The USA, Europe, and their allies, driven by strategic interests, have shielded Pakistan, equated it with democratic India, and betrayed the global cause of justice. How can terrorism be defeated when powerful allies protect its sponsors?
India’s resolute response:
The Pahalgam attack was not just a tragedy; it was a calculated act of terror designed by Pakistan to destabilise prospects of peace and harmony returning to Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370. Armed militants, linked to LeT through TRF, targeted Hindu tourists in a scenic valley killing 26 and injuring 17 persons.
The brutality was unmistakable: vacationing families’ joy turned into a nightmare; sons were shot and killed in front of their mothers; husbands were executed in front of their wives and children. This attack aimed to cripple Kashmir’s tourism-driven economy, injecting fear into millions of potential visitors and shattering the symbol of its hard-won stability.
India’s response under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi was swift and decisive. On May 7, Operation Sindhoor targeted terror infrastructure across the Line of Control (LoC), destroying nine terror sites in Pakistan and PoK.
Described as ‘non-escalatory’ by Indian officials, the strikes marked a bold departure from past restraint, signalling that India would no longer tolerate Pakistan’s proxy war.
Beyond military action, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, closed the Attari-Wagah border, expelled Pakistani diplomats, and banned Pakistani media houses like Dawn and Geo TV. These measures aimed at isolating Pakistan diplomatically and economically, reflected India’s deep frustration with decades of cross-border terrorism.
India’s actions were grounded in undeniable evidence. Pakistan’s military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have long supported groups like LeT, a fact admitted in 2019 by former president Pervez Musharraf, when he called terrorists “our assets.”
Recent rhetoric from their army chief Asim Munir describing Kashmir as Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” further betrays Islamabad’s intentions. Yet it denied any involvement in Pahalgam, absurdly proposing a ‘neutral’ investigation that India rightly rejected. The world watched as India took a stand against terrorism, but where was the international support it deserved?
West’s geopolitical calculations:
The response from the USA, Europe and other western nations was a masterclass in diplomatic ambiguity. U.S. President Donald Trump condemned the Pahalgam attack but urged both India and Pakistan to “de-escalate” and “figure it out,” as if India’s defensive strikes were equivalent to Pakistan’s sponsorship of terror. Secretary of State Marco Rubio walked a similar tightrope, acknowledging India’s right to self-defence while calling on Pakistan to cooperate in investigations.
This neutrality reeks of geopolitical expediency. The U.S., entangled in a web of strategic interests, prioritises Pakistan’s mineral wealth, including lithium, cobalt, and copper showcased at a U.S. forum in April, and its role as a counterweight to China and Russia. Supporting India unequivocally risks alienating a key player in South Asia’s great power game.
Europe’s response was equally tepid. The UK, France, and Germany issued perfunctory condemnations of the attack but stopped short of endorsing India’s military action. UK MP Priti Patel raised questions in the British Parliament about LeT’s involvement, yet her government avoided directly criticising Pakistan, likely due to lucrative arms deals and counterterrorism cooperation.
France and Germany, wary of disrupting trade ties and Pakistan’s role in Afghan stability, opted for silence over solidarity. This collective reticence stems from a cold calculus: Pakistan’s strategic location and cheap mineral resources outweigh the moral imperative to confront its terror links.
When I see one western leader after another offering empty condolences for Pahalgam while side-stepping their statesmanlike responsibility to name and shame the global terror sponsor Pakistan, it succinctly captures my sentiment: “India fights terrorism alone, while the U.S. and Europe play both sides for their gain.”
The west’s failure to back India exposes a troubling reality: geopolitical interests trump justice, and Pakistan’s dual-track strategy of economic diplomacy and proxy violence is allowed to persist unchecked.
False equivalence of Pakistan with India
Pakistan’s credibility on terrorism is in tatters, yet it continues to enjoy western protection shield. Former Defence minister Khawaja Asif admitted recently on international media that Pakistan was supporting terror groups for three decades
while being a U.S. ally in the war on terror. This confession aligns with widespread evidence of ISI backing LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and other global terror outfits.
Despite this, Pakistan’s response to Pahalgam was a predictable denial, with officials like Rana Sanaullah suggesting the attack was an Indian “false flag” operation. Such deflections are not new; Pakistan has consistently evaded accountability, even after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, where LeT’s role was indisputable.
A classic case of Pakistan’s duplicity was Osama Bin Laden being tracked to Abbottabad in the heart of Pakistan and neutralised by the U.S. Special Forces.
Pakistan used lies and deceit as a statecraft tool, even with its ally, the USA, for over a decade during the post-9/11 manhunt for Osama. The geopolitical compulsion of the USA was evident in its refusal to take any decisive punitive action even after Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. Ironically, the U.S. continued to funnel billions of dollars in aid to a rogue state that was hiding the world’s most wanted terrorist, indirectly abetting 9/11, the deadliest terror attack on American soil.
Equally galling is the west’s tendency to equate India, a vibrant democracy protecting its citizens, with Pakistan, a failed state ruled by a military proxy government and known for harbouring terrorists.
President Trump’s assertion that he is “very close to Prime Ministers of both India and Pakistan” is a grotesque false equivalence, ignoring India’s restraint and Pakistan’s complicity.
The U.S. designation of Pakistan as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA), reaffirmed despite its terror links, is a slap in the face to victims of attacks like 9/11, the UK Underground bombings, the 2015 Paris attacks, and now Pahalgam.
Europe’s silence only compounds this moral bankruptcy. Nations that claim to champion human rights are failing to distinguish between victims of terrorism and its sponsors.
This equivalence is not just unfair, it’s dangerous. By treating India and Pakistan as equals in dialogue, the west legitimises Pakistan’s narrative and undermines the truth India presents at forums like the UN. The question must be asked: How can a nation known for sheltering terrorists be equated with one fighting to protect its citizens?
The answers lie in the unscrupulous geopolitics of today’s world order, where strategic alliances trump moral clarity.
Can terrorism be defeated with selective politics?
The west’s selective politics is a betrayal of the global fight against terrorism. By hesitating to support India’s actions, the U.S. and Europe embolden states like Pakistan to continue their proxy wars. This is not a new phenomenon. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the U.S. failed to pressure Pakistan despite overwhelming evidence of LeT’s involvement, allowing groups like TRF to rise years later.
The continued flow of western aid and arms to Pakistan, even as it harbours terrorists, sends a chilling message: terrorism is tolerable, if it serves geopolitical ends.
Defeating terrorism requires a unified global stance against state sponsors, not diplomatic hedging. The west’s reluctance to hold Pakistan accountable risks normalising terrorism as a tool of state policy, threatening global security. If the USA prioritises access to Pakistan’s minerals or its strategic role in countering China over dismantling its terror infrastructure, it becomes complicit in this cycle of violence. I strongly believe: “The west’s silence on Pakistan’s terror links is as good as funding the next attack.”
Conclusion:
The Pahalgam attack was a brutal reminder of terrorism’s toll, while Operation Sindhoor was a courageous stand against it. Yet, the west’s muted response, driven by manipulative calculations of minerals, alliances, and optics, reveals a world order that sacrifices justice for expediency.
By equating India with Pakistan, the west betrays the very war on terror it claims to lead.
India must not blink or waver. It must continue to expose Pakistan’s complicity, leverage its diplomatic strength, and strike decisively at terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK, exercising its undeniable right to self-defence.
The international community must awaken to the moral imperative of confronting state-sponsored terrorism by a rogue state like Pakistan, regardless of the strategic cost. If the world’s powers continue to fund and shield the manufacturer of global terrorism, where is the hope for a terror-free future?
The blood of Pahalgam’s victims demands justice, not selective politics.
Until the world prioritises accountability over geopolitics, the meadows of Kashmir and the streets of London, Paris, Berlin and New York will remain haunted by the spectre of terrorism.
(The Author is the Chief Spokesperson of BJP, Chairman of the Nation Building Foundation, a Harvard Business School-certified Strategist & a Leadership Coach.)