Editorial 1:Blame not the messenger in India’s diplomacy
Context
India’s strong stand against terrorism and Pakistan will gain more support if it highlights its strengths—being a secular, stable, and law-abiding democracy.
Introduction
History and literature are full of examples warning against blaming the messenger for delivering bad news. In Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen attacks a messenger and threatens to have him tortured for telling her that Mark Antony has married someone else. The messenger replies, “I didn’t arrange the marriage, I only brought the news,” before quickly leaving. In a similar way, over the past two months, India’s diplomats—its ‘diplomatic messengers’—have faced unusual criticism. But they are not being blamed for the message itself. Instead, they are being criticised for not communicating clearly enough the message that New Delhi tried to send after Operation Sindoor (May 7–10, 2025).
Criticism of Indian diplomacy
Public criticism of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and its missions abroad has focused on three main issues:
- Lack of Strong International Support for India
- India received condolences and condemnations after the Pahalgam terror attack, but not clear support for retaliatory action on Pakistan.
- Comparisons have been made to earlier stronger support:
| Year | Context | Support Received |
| 2008 | Mumbai Attacks | UNSC designations, FATF greylisting of Pakistan |
| 2016 | Uri Attack | SAARC boycott support from neighbours (e.g. Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka) |
| 2019 | Pulwama Attack | Masood Azhar designated terrorist by UNSC (with China’s support under pressure) |
- In contrast, this time Pakistan gained support from-
- China
- Turkiye
- Azerbaijan
- Malaysia
- Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)
- Pakistan’s Recent Diplomatic Gains
- Despite global understanding of Pakistan’s link to terrorism, it achieved several diplomatic wins:
| Event | Diplomatic Outcome for Pakistan |
| April | Got TRF removed from UNSC resolution on Pahalgam |
| Recent | Became Chair of Taliban Sanctions Committee and Vice-Chair of Counter-Terrorism Committee(UNSC) |
| Loans | Secured IMF and ADB loans despite India’s objections |
| White House | General Asim Munir invited for a lunch; seen in India as endorsing his controversial “jugular vein” remark |
| Upcoming | As UNSC President (July), Pakistan may raise the India-Pakistan conflict and Kashmir issue |
- Meanwhile, India is trying to –
- Push TRF designation at UNSC
- Move Pakistan back to FATF greylist
- U.S. President Trump’s Mixed Signals
- President Donald Trump has repeatedly –
- Linked India and Pakistan in his statements post-ceasefire (May 10)
- Suggested mediation on Kashmir
- Not condemned terrorism in any recent statement
- His latest comments came —
- Just after a call with PM Modi
- Just before meeting Gen. Munir
- Seen as most blatant effort to undermine India’s narrative
India’s Diplomatic Push Post-Operation Sindoor
- India has launched a large diplomatic campaign, unlike in 2016 or 2019-
- MPs and diplomats sent to 32 countries
- Longest effort in the United States (6 days)
- PM Modi to meet BRICS leaders post-G7
- EAM Jaishankar to attend Quad meet after European visits
| Region | Key Actions Taken |
| U.S. | Extended delegation visit + Quad meeting |
| Europe | Multiple diplomatic visits by EAM |
| Global | Outreach via MPs and retired diplomats |
- These efforts show that India acknowledges the gap in diplomatic impact and is working to strengthen its messaging.
Who Crafts the Message?
- Like in Shakespeare’s story, India’s diplomats deliver, but do not decide, the message.
- The government must reassess–
- What message it is sending
- How geopolitical narratives are shifting
- How India is perceived globally
- A more realistic diplomatic strategy is needed to align India’s goals with international responses, especially on Pakistan and terrorism.
Mr. Modi’s “New Normal” and Global Reactions
- India’s new diplomatic doctrine, described as the “New Normal”, has drawn concern internationally due to its potentially escalatory tone.
- Three-Pronged Doctrine is –
- “Any act of terror is an act of war”
- Seen as lowering the threshold for military conflict.
- Places the trigger for war in the hands of any terrorist, even without state backing.
- “India will not bow to nuclear blackmail”
- Although not new, this idea had been left unstated publicly.
- Its articulation now raises the spectre of nuclear risk in the region.
- “No distinction between state and non-state actors”
- Sends an escalatory signal that future terror attacks could lead to full-scale conflict, not just limited operations like Operation Sindoor.
- Despite not being asked for proof of Pakistan’s role in the Pahalgam attack, many countries question why the attackers remain untraced.
Changing Global Context and Its Impact on India’s Image
Recent global events have changed how nations view India’s assertive posture:
- Statements about retaking Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) by force raise alarm, especially given:
- Ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, West Asia, and the South China Sea.
- Heightened sensitivity to territorial aggression worldwide.
- After Israel’s large-scale retaliation post-October 2023 attacks, major powers are reluctant to endorse retribution-based policies.
India’s Stand on Global Conflicts: Mixed Receptions
| Conflict Area | India’s Position | International Response |
| Ukraine War | Did not condemn Russia; increased oil imports | Viewed negatively, especially in Europe |
| Gaza Conflict | Maintained silence on Israel’s actions in Gaza | Led to disappointment in the Global South |
- India’s positions have eroded its credibility among some allies who expect consistent adherence to international norms.
Diplomatic Dilemma and Messaging Contradictions
- PM Modi reportedly told President Trump that terrorism from Pakistan is “not proxy war, but war itself.”
- However, India’s diplomats now face a messaging challenge:
- India promotes dialogue and diplomacy elsewhere, including Ukraine, yet excludes Pakistan from the same.
- Repeated use of the phrase “this is not an era of war” elsewhere now appears inconsistent.
The Need for Strategic Communication Reset
- Despite the double standards in international expectations, India must:
- Reassess the substance and tone of its diplomatic messaging.
- Understand the shifts in global geopolitical narratives.
- Frame its actions in a way that enhances credibility and retains support without compromising national security interests.
Democracy in decline
- There is a growing need to reflect on how the Modi government’s global image has changed since 2019, leading to diplomatic challenges.
- Several domestic developments have drawn international scrutiny, including:
- The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
- The abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir.
- Internet shutdowns and summary arrests in various regions.
- Allegations of Indian involvement in transnational assassinations in countries like the United States and Canada.
- These developments have raised:
- Concerns about the decline of democracy in India.
- Questions about the treatment of minorities and civil liberties.
- During diplomatic outreach post-Operation Sindoor, Indian delegations had to address these concerns while trying to build support internationally.
- The situation underscores the importance of:
- Addressing perception gaps.
- Ensuring that domestic policy actions do not undermine India’s credibility abroad.
Conclusion
India’s right to defend itself against Pakistan-backed terrorism is unquestionable. However, its global message on terror gains strength when backed by India’s identity as a secular, stable, pluralistic democracy that upholds the rule of lawand stands as a rising economic power—in sharp contrast to Pakistan.
Editorial 2: Exiting refugee status, getting back dignity
Context
India’s way of dealing with Sri Lankan refugees and Tibetan refugees is very different from each other.
Introduction
Two recent and unrelated events — one in India and one in Sri Lanka — have brought attention to the long-pending issues of whether Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu should be sent back or allowed to settle locally. The first event was in India, where the Supreme Court chose not to overturn a Madras High Court decision from 2022. That decision had reduced a refugee’s jail term from 10 years to 7 years, even though he had been found guilty under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Key Developments Highlighting the Challenges Faced by Sri Lankan Refugees
- Case 1: Supreme Court Verdict in India
- A Sri Lankan refugee, convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, had his sentence reduced by the Madras High Court from 10 to 7 years in 2022.
- He had earlier given a written commitment to leave India after completing the sentence.
- However, he later approached the Supreme Court, requesting to stay in India due to personal reasons, as he had already served his term.
- During the hearing, a two-judge Bench orally remarked that “India is not a dharamshala (free shelter)”, indicating reluctance to accept all refugees.
- This comment surprised and upset refugee communities, as Indian courts have generally shown empathytowards refugees in the past.
- Case 2: Detention in Sri Lanka of a Returning Refugee
- An elderly refugee, who had voluntarily returned to Sri Lanka after many years in Tamil Nadu, was detained at Palaly airport in Jaffna.
- Authorities held him because he had earlier left Sri Lanka without valid travel documents.
- This occurred despite the repatriation being facilitated by the UNHCR’s Chennai office.
- The detention sparked outrage, leading to his eventual release.
- Sri Lanka’s Transport Minister and JVP leader Bimal Rathnayake responded quickly, attributing the detention to an automatic legal provision and promised to amend the policy affecting such returnees.
Refugee Presence in India: Tibetan vs. Sri Lankan
- Around 90,000 Sri Lankan refugees live in Tamil Nadu, both inside and outside rehabilitation camps.
- Tibetan refugees, numbering around 63,170, have been in India for a longer period.
- Despite this, there are major differences in treatment and policies for both groups.
Differences in Arrival and Settlement
| Aspect | Sri Lankan Refugees | Tibetan Refugees |
| Period of Influx | 1983–2012 | Began in 1959 (and continued after) |
| Repatriation Efforts | Organised repatriation continued till 1995 | No repatriation efforts; focus on local integration |
| Settlement Location | Mostly in Tamil Nadu (few in Odisha) | Settled across multiple states: Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh |
| Government Policy Framework | No national policy document | Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy (TRP), 2014 |
Union Government’s Policy Approach
- The Ministry of Home Affairs refers to repatriation as the final goal for Sri Lankan refugees in its reports.
- However, such language is not used for Tibetan refugees, who are seen as a community to be locally integrated.
- A clear policy shift is evident in the Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy (TRP):
- TRP allows Tibetans to access welfare schemes.
- It enables them to participate in employment programs and private sector jobs.
Missed Opportunities for Sri Lankan Refugees
- The Tamil Nadu government has extended welfare schemes to Sri Lankan refugees, but there is no national framework like TRP.
- Despite nearly 500 young Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu holding engineering degrees:
- Only about 5% have jobs in their respective fields.
- Private firms, especially in IT, hesitate to hire them due to lack of formal refugee integration policies.
Live up to the theme
- It has been over 40 years since the first group of Sri Lankan refugees arrived in India.
- Around two-thirds of the refugee population in Tamil Nadu still live in rehabilitation camps.
- There is a growing need for public debate on how long these camps should continue to operate.
- Despite the good intentions of both the Central and State governments,
- living with the “refugee” label is not something a person with self-respect would want to carry forever.
Conclusion
Repatriation and local integration should be considered together as part of a comprehensive and lasting solution, to be developed by the authorities in close consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including the Sri Lankan government. The theme of this year’s World Refugee Day (June 20) is “solidarity with refugees,” but such solidarity will hold true meaning only when refugees are able to live their lives with dignity and respect.
