It was not long ago that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved the disbursement of approximately $1 billion under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and around $1.4 billion under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF) to Pakistan, and now the Islamic Republic has secured key positions on the United Nations Security Council.
Pakistan has been appointed to pivotal roles within subsidiary bodies of the UNSC, including as Chair of the Taliban Sanctions Committee (Resolution 1988), Vice Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (Resolution 1373), and Co-Chair of two informal working groups on sanctions and documentation.
Furthermore, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has recently approved an $800 million package to enhance fiscal sustainability and public financial management in Pakistan. The World Bank also unveiled a $40 billion investment in Pakistan, set to span 2026–2035, aimed at boosting key sectors under the Country Partnership Framework.
This all comes amid escalating regional tensions, triggered by the barbaric Pahalgam terror attack. The recent development at the UNSC may fall short of what Pakistan had hoped for, but it clearly highlights the ‘terrorist nation’s’ active involvement at the UN.
What’s even more concerning is that Indian diplomacy currently falls short of expectations. Another thing I fail to understand is why the government is sending all-party delegations abroad to justify its actions. Russia didn’t do this after attacking Ukraine, nor did the US after invading Iraq, or Israel after its operations in Gaza. Superpowers don’t feel the need for such measures. So if Pakistan is doing it, why should India feel compelled to follow suit? Especially when that diplomatic effort isn’t yielding results for India. By avoiding the expense of sending such an ineffective delegation abroad, the government could have at least saved the taxpayers’ hard-earned money.
India’s foreign policy seems uncertain, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s international trips appearing more symbolic than strategic. These foreign visits seem more like gigantic and fancy NRI events than real diplomatic efforts. I firmly believe that diplomacy goes beyond speeches and photo ops; it’s not just a PR event, an arena where PM Modi undoubtedly excels.
The US Element
Two statements by US presidents come to mind. Speaking at a joint session of both houses in the Central Hall of Parliament in 2010, following the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, then-President Barack Obama said, “We will continue to insist to Pakistan’s leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks be brought to justice. We recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries.”
Now, fast-forward to 2025. What does US President and one of PM Modi’s “best friend” Donald Trump say? Trump commends the “strong and unwaveringly” leadership of both India and Pakistan for the ceasefire. For the first time since the 9/11 attacks, an American president has viewed Pakistan and India through the same lens. Trump goes further, stating, “I will work with you both (India and Pakistan) to see if, after a “thousand years,” a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir.” This signals direct involvement in India’s internal affairs. He also claims to have persuaded both nations to agree to the ceasefire by threatening to withhold trade. Following this, India issued clarifications, which seem to characterize the “strained” dynamics between two supposedly “good friends.”
Beyond Boundaries
Even if we exclude America, I do not see a single country that openly supported India’s military action. China, Turkey and Azerbaijan openly supported Pakistan. Israel is our strong ally in the Middle East, but its stance has also not been that tough. During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, we did not get any support from Russia, like the Soviet Union supported us. However, the boycott gang has appealed to people not to celebrate holidays in Turkey and Azerbaijan.
The question is where did we go wrong? Firstly, why was America allowed to interfere in our internal matters? It would have been better if we had taken advantage of our strong relations with Israel and got Israel to put pressure on Azerbaijan. Note that 62-64% of the weapons available to Azerbaijan come from Israel. China seems to be outsmarting us on the Russia issue. Direct hostility with Turkey is equivalent to hostility with NATO. According to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all. NATO members include Turkey and the US.
Falling Diplomacy
A picture from 2019 comes to mind. PM Modi meeting former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Praising Kissinger, PM Modi had said, “He (Kissinger) has made pioneering contributions to international politics and diplomacy.” I also remember something Kissinger said. Kissinger had said, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”
If I’m not mistaken, the same Kissinger praised by Prime Minister Modi is the one who, as the US National Security Advisor during the 1971 Indo-Pak war, encouraged China to take military action against India. Fast-forward to 2025, PM Modi’s “friend” Trump is the US President—a leader who, like Kissinger, holds a firm belief that for the US only American interests matter. This perspective of Mr. Trump was clearly reflected during the recent Indo-Pak conflict. Despite the much-publicized “great friendship” between Prime Minister Modi and President Trump, the latter showed little inclination to offer India unequivocal support. This leads me to the view that the international applause directed at PM Modi is more a matter of rhetoric than of reality.
India’s Abstention At The IMF
During the IMF’s review meeting on the loan disbursal to Pakistan, India chose to abstain rather than vote against the motion. The move surprised me just as much as it surprised former Finance Secretary of India, Subhash Chandra Garg. Following India’s abstention, I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Garg about the matter. He mentioned, “This one did surprise me also – why did India not vote against and only abstained? So, that is the reason we don’t know, that will be for the government to explain.”
Another thing that surprised me was the irresponsible behaviour of the Indian media, which claimed that the IMF’s voting system does not allow a formal ‘no’ vote. However, Mr. Garg told me, “No, this is not true. Countries can vote against, countries can abstain, or countries can vote in favour. There is absolutely no such provision that no one can vote against.” Following this, I verified the claim with an IMF spokesperson, who stated, “We at the IMF Executive Board, Executive Directors can vote yes, no or abstain.” The false claims were thus debunked.
The question still stands, why didn’t India vote against it at the IMF? Defence Minister Rajnath Singh questioned the IMF’s decision, but why wasn’t that strong stance reflected in India’s position at the IMF? Was it fear of the US that influenced India’s stance? That is a question for the government to answer.
I am not claiming that India’s vote against the loan would have stopped its approval; however, a ‘no’ vote would have signalled the country’s strong stance against terrorism. The U.S. holds a major 16.49% vote share at the IMF. The EU countries collectively have about a 25–30% stake. China has a 6.08% vote share, while India holds only around 2.63%. Therefore, India’s ‘no’ vote wouldn’t have had much impact on the disbursal of Pakistan’s IMF bailout package, but it would have reflected the country’s strong opposition to the motion.
Patriotism Is The Last Refuge
English writer Samuel Johnson rightly said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Whenever anyone dares to question the establishment about declining diplomacy, US influence, or the rationale behind the ceasefire, especially when it was a win-win situation for India’s armed forces, the establishment hides behind the cover of patriotism.
In current times, when the media resembles a comedy show more than a serious institution, it has become increasingly difficult for any intellectual to question the establishment: whether about fighter jet losses, the acquisition of stealth jets, or any number of other pressing issues.
I say and write what I believe to be right. American author and poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox was never more right than when she said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
Summary- PM Modi’s foreign visits appear more focused on grand NRI events than meaningful diplomacy, while Pakistan gains strategic ground at global forums like the UN. India’s foreign policy seems reactive and superficial, relying on symbolic gestures and ineffective delegations rather than substantive diplomatic engagement, raising concerns about long-term strategic direction.
(Akshat Mittal is a Journalist, Writer and Columnist for several newspapers and magazines)
