The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 20th June 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Blame not the messenger in India’s diplomacy

Why in News? 

 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:

1. 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:
• 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).

2. Pakistan’s Recent Diplomatic Gains

• Despite global understanding of Pakistan’s link to terrorism, it achieved several diplomatic wins:
• 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.

3. U.S. President Trump’s Mixed Signals

• President Donald Trump has repeatedly linked India and Pakistan in his statements post-ceasefire (May 10) and suggested mediation on Kashmir.
• He has not condemned terrorism in any recent statement, with his latest comments coming just after a call with PM Modi and before meeting Gen. Munir.
• This is seen as a 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

RegionKey Actions TakenU.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. The Three-Pronged Doctrine is:

• "Any act of terror is an act of war". This principle is seen as lowering the threshold for military conflict by placing the trigger for war in the hands of any terrorist, even without state backing.
• "India will not bow to nuclear blackmail". Although not a new concept, its public articulation raises concerns about nuclear risk in the region.
• "No distinction between state and non-state actors". This statement 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 altered how nations perceive India’s assertive posture, particularly regarding statements about retaking Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) by force. This raises alarm in the context of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, West Asia, and the South China Sea, leading to heightened sensitivity to territorial aggression worldwide. Following Israel’s large-scale retaliation post-October 2023 attacks, major powers are becoming reluctant to endorse retribution-based policies.

India’s Stand on Global Conflicts: Mixed Receptions

India’s positions on global conflicts have received mixed reactions:

• Ukraine War. India did not condemn Russia and increased oil imports, leading to negative views, especially in Europe.
• Gaza Conflict. India maintained silence on Israel’s actions in Gaza, resulting in disappointment in the Global South.

These positions have eroded India’s credibility among some allies who expect consistent adherence to international norms.

Diplomatic Dilemma and Messaging Contradictions

Prime Minister Modi reportedly informed President Trump that terrorism from Pakistan is “not proxy war, but war itself.” However, India’s diplomats now face a contradiction in messaging: while promoting dialogue and diplomacy elsewhere, including Ukraine, Pakistan is excluded from this approach. The repeated use of the phrase “this is not an era of war” in other contexts 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 and 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 and ensuring that domestic policy actions do not undermine India’s credibility abroad.

Conclusion

India has an unquestionable right to defend itself against terrorism backed by Pakistan. However, its global message on terrorism becomes stronger when it is supported by India’s identity as a secular, stable, pluralistic democracy that upholds the rule of law. Additionally, India’s position as a rising economic power stands in stark contrast to Pakistan, further reinforcing its narrative.

Exiting refugee status, getting back dignity

Why in News? 

India’s way of dealing with Sri Lankan refugees and Tibetan refugees is very different from each other.

Introduction

Recent events in India and Sri Lanka have highlighted the ongoing issues surrounding Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu. A Supreme Court ruling in India and a detention incident in Sri Lanka have sparked discussions about the future of these refugees.

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 empathy towards 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 promising to amend the policy affecting such returnees.

Refugee Presence in India: Tibetan vs. Sri Lankan

• Sri Lankan Refugees: Approximately 90,000 live in Tamil Nadu, both inside and outside rehabilitation camps.
• Tibetan Refugees: Around 63,170, have been in India since 1959.

Differences in Treatment and Policies

1. Arrival and Settlement

2. Union Government’s Policy Approach

• Sri Lankan Refugees: The Ministry of Home Affairs refers to repatriation as the final goal.
• Tibetan Refugees: No such reference; seen as a community to be locally integrated.
• Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy (TRP): Allows Tibetans to access welfare schemes, participate in employment programs, and work in the private sector.

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 the 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.