How World Leaders Reacted to India’s Strikes on Terror Bases in Pakistan
On a charged morning that shook South Asia, India conducted precision strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK, the most assertive upping of the ante against cross-border terrorism. Operation Sindoor, as the military operation was codenamed, followed two weeks after the horrific Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people, including security forces and civilians. The Indian government presented the operation as a “preemptive and proportionate” action to destroy terror launchpads utilized by outfits such as Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which were behind several terror attacks on Indian territory.
As world powers rushed to react, the attacks lit a diplomatic firestorm, straining alliances, revealing geopolitical fault lines, and highlighting the delicate balance between national security needs and regional stability. This blog dissects the sophisticated responses of world leaders, regional actors, and international institutions, providing insights into the intricate dynamics of diplomacy, counterterrorism, and power politics.
India’s Justification: A Response to “Persistent Cross-Border Terrorism”
India’s Ministry of Defence reiterated that Operation Sindoor was a response to actionable intelligence about impending terror plots emanating from Pakistani soil. In a televised speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced, “India will no longer tolerate terrorism as a tool of state policy.”. Our military has sent a strong message: the price of terror will be too great.” The government made public satellite images and intercepted communications to back allegations of Pakistani involvement in hosting terror organizations, an accusation Islamabad has denied for years.
The action was likened to India’s 2016 “surgical strikes” after the Uri attack and the 2019 Balakot airstrikes following Pulwama. But it was the first time that India openly admitted to strikes along the Line of Control (LoC) in PoK, a sign of transitioning towards open military deterrence.
Pakistan’s Reaction: Fury and Denial
Pakistan condemned the strikes as a “blatant violation of sovereignty” and an “act of aggression.” Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif accused India of “reckless militarism” to divert attention from domestic issues, while the military warned of “severe consequences.” Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry summoned India’s envoy and vowed to rally international support against what it termed “unprovoked escalation.”
Notably, Islamabad denied hosting terror bases, dismissing India’s evidence as “fabricated.” This narrative found traction among Pakistan’s allies, including China and Turkey, who called for restraint. Meanwhile, social media in Pakistan erupted with hashtags like #StopIndianAggression, reflecting public outrage.
Global Reactions: A Divided Diplomatic Landscape
United States: Cautious Support for India’s Counterterrorism Efforts
The U.S. walked a fine line. Although recognizing India’s “right of self-defense,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken called on both countries to “avoid further escalation.” A State Department spokesperson stressed, “The U.S. stands with all countries fighting terrorism but urges dialogue to settle differences.”
Behind the scenes, Washington allegedly urged Pakistan to move against terror outfits to avert a broader conflict. Analysts pointed out that the Biden administration’s subdued criticism of India was in line with its Indo-Pacific strategy, where India is positioned as a counterweight to China. But worries about nuclear-armed rivals engaging in combat persisted, with U.S. intelligence keeping a close eye on troop movements.
Russia: Backing India’s Security Concerns
Russia, a longtime friend of India, gave implicit support. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, “India has legitimate security interests,” while calling for “restraint on all sides.” Moscow’s position reflects the increasing defense cooperation between Russia and India, such as arms sales and military exercises. Yet Russia’s increasing involvement with Pakistan, specifically in energy ventures, moderated its tone.
China: A Neutral Facade with Pro-Pakistan Undertones
China, Pakistan’s “all-weather friend,” urged “maximum restraint” but tactfully criticized India. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson emphasized, “Sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected,” alluding indirectly to India’s attacks in PoK, which are considered by Beijing as disputed territory. China’s restrained reaction also reflected its economic interests in Pakistan (through CPEC) and not wanting to jeopardize relations with India in the face of Ladakh border tensions.
Europe: Calls for De-escalation
European powers like the UK, France, and Germany issued boilerplate statements urging de-escalation. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs emphasized, “Terrorism cannot be justified, but military action must comply with international law.” France, a key defense partner to India, privately endorsed New Delhi’s counterterrorism efforts but publicly advocated for dialogue.
Middle East: Balancing Act
Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, treaded carefully. Both have deepened their relationship with India under Modi but retain religious and economic ties to Pakistan. Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry voiced “concern” and proposed mediation, while the UAE diplomatically complimented India’s “resolve” against extremism. Qatar and Iran, on the other hand, condemned the strikes as “unilateral aggression.
International Organizations: Mixed Messages
- United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres appealed for “immediate de-escalation” and reiterated opposition to terrorism.
- Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC): The OIC condemned the strikes as “violations of international law,” echoing Pakistan’s stance.
- SAARC: The regional bloc remained silent, underscoring its irrelevance in crisis resolution.
Analysis: Geopolitical Implications
- Counterterrorism vs. Sovereignty: The strikes reignited debates over preemptive military action in sovereign territory. While India framed the operation as lawful under UN principles of self-defense, critics argued it set a dangerous precedent.
- China’s Dilemma: Beijing’s tepid response revealed its struggle to balance support for Pakistan with efforts to stabilize relations with India.
- U.S.-India Strategic Alignment: Washington’s tacit approval of the operation highlighted the deepening trust in bilateral defense ties, even as the U.S. navigates its reliance on Pakistan for Afghan peace talks.
- Nuclear Shadow: With both nations possessing nuclear arsenals, global leaders fear accidental escalation could spiral into catastrophe.
A Precarious Path Forward
The global reaction to Operation Sindoor highlights the instability of South Asian geopolitics. Although India’s commitment to fighting terror garnered tempered approval, its military assertiveness threatens to destabilize a region already on the edge. For Pakistan, the attacks are a wake-up call to live down its claimed status as a terror hub or risk becoming an isolated nation.
Finally, the crisis underlines the need for an urgent, coordinated international response to terrorism—one that makes states responsible for hosting extremists without allowing unilateral actions that might spark war. While world leaders walk on eggshells, citizens of both countries wait with bated breath, praying that diplomacy triumphs over devastation.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletters and get the latest updates directly to your inbox.