The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 21st June 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Blame not the messenger in India’s diplomacy

​Why in News?

 History and literature contain numerous examples cautioning against blaming the messenger for delivering unpleasant news. In Shakespeare's  Antony and Cleopatra  , the Egyptian queen berates a messenger and threatens to torture him for informing her that Mark Antony has married another woman. The messenger responds, "I didn't arrange the marriage, I only brought the news," before hastily departing. Similarly, in the past two months, India’s diplomats—its ‘diplomatic messengers’ —have faced unexpected criticism. However, they are not being held responsible for the message itself but rather for not communicating New Delhi's intended message clearly enough following Operation Sindoor (May 7–10, 2025). 

Criticism of Indian diplomacy

 Public criticism of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and its missions abroad has centred on three key issues: 

• Lack of Strong International Support for India: After the Pahalgam terror attack, India received condolences and condemnations but lacked clear support for retaliatory action against Pakistan. Comparisons were made to earlier instances of stronger support, such as in 2008, 2016, and 2019, when India received significant backing from the international community. In contrast, this time, Pakistan garnered support from countries like China, Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). 
• Pakistan’s Recent Diplomatic Gains: Despite global awareness of Pakistan's links to terrorism, the country achieved several diplomatic successes, including the removal of the TRF from a UNSC resolution, chairing the Taliban Sanctions Committee and vice-chairing the Counter-Terrorism Committee at the UNSC, securing loans from the IMF and ADB, and receiving a lunch invitation for General Asim Munir from the White House. These developments were perceived in India as undermining its narrative. 
• U.S. President Trump’s Mixed Signals: President Trump has linked India and Pakistan in his post-ceasefire statements, suggested mediation on Kashmir, and failed to condemn terrorism in recent remarks. His comments, made just after a call with PM Modi and before a meeting with General Munir, were seen as undermining India's narrative and supporting Pakistan. 

India’s Diplomatic Push Post-Operation Sindoor

 In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, India has initiated a significant diplomatic campaign, distinguishing itself from the responses in 2016 or 2019. Key actions include: 

•  Sending MPs and diplomats to 32 countries, with an extended effort in the United States. 
•  Prime Minister Modi planning to meet BRICS leaders after the G7 summit. 
•  External Affairs Minister (EAM) Jaishankar attending a Quad meeting following visits to European countries. 

Key Actions Taken

Region

U.S.: Extended delegation visit and Quad meeting. 

Europe: Multiple diplomatic visits by EAM Jaishankar. 

Global: Outreach initiatives involving MPs and retired diplomats. 

 These efforts demonstrate India’s recognition of the need to enhance its diplomatic impact and strengthen its messaging in the international arena. 

Who Crafts the Message?

India's diplomats, much like characters in Shakespeare's stories, are responsible for delivering messages but not for deciding their content.

• Assesing the Message: The government needs to reassess what message it is sending, how geopolitical narratives are changing, and how India is perceived globally.
• Aligning Goals:. more realistic diplomatic strategy is required to align India's goals with international responses, particularly regarding Pakistan and terrorism.

Mr. Modi’s “New Normal” and Global Reactions

India's new diplomatic approach, termed the "New Normal," has raised international concerns due to its potentially escalatory nature.

Three-Pronged Doctrine:

• "Any act of terror is an act of war": This principle is seen as lowering the threshold for military conflict, placing the trigger for war in the hands of any terrorist, even without state backing.
• "India will not bow to nuclear blackmail": While 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.

Global Scrutiny: Many countries question why the attackers in the Pahalgam incident remain untraced, despite not being asked for proof of Pakistan's involvement.

Changing Global Context and Its Impact on India’s Image

• Recent global events have altered how nations perceive India's assertive stance, particularly regarding territorial issues.
• Statements about retaking Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) by force raise concerns, especially in light of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, West Asia, and the South China Sea, where there is heightened sensitivity to territorial aggression.
• Following Israel's extensive retaliation after the October 2023 attacks, major powers have become cautious about endorsing retribution-based policies, affecting their response to India's stance.

India’s Stand on Global Conflicts: Mixed Receptions

Diplomatic Dilemma and Messaging Contradictions

• Prime Minister Modi reportedly conveyed to President Trump that terrorism from Pakistan constitutes "not a proxy war, but war itself."
• However, Indian diplomats now face a challenge in their messaging.
• India advocates for dialogue and diplomacy in various contexts, including Ukraine, yet excludes Pakistan from this approach.
• The repeated assertion of "this is not an era of war" in other contexts now appears inconsistent.

The Need for Strategic Communication Reset

• Despite the perceived double standards in international expectations, India must reassess the substance and tone of its diplomatic messaging.
• It is crucial for India to understand the shifts in global geopolitical narratives and frame its actions in a manner that enhances credibility and maintains support without compromising national security interests.

Democracy in Decline

• There is an increasing necessity to reflect on the evolving global image of the Modi government since 2019, which has led to diplomatic challenges.
• Various domestic developments have attracted international scrutiny, such as:
• The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA)
• The abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir
• Internet shutdowns and summary arrests in different regions
• Allegations of India's involvement in transnational assassinations in countries like the United States and Canada
• These issues have raised concerns about the decline of democracy in India and the treatment of minorities and civil liberties.
• During diplomatic efforts following Operation Sindoor, Indian delegations had to address these concerns while seeking international support.
• The situation highlights the need to bridge perception gaps and ensure that domestic policies do not undermine India's credibility on the global stage.

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 law and stands as a rising economic power—in sharp contrast to Pakistan.

Exiting refugee status, getting back dignity

Why is it in the news?

 There are around 90,000 Sri Lankan refugees living in Tamil Nadu, India. Recently, the Supreme Court of India made a decision about a Sri Lankan refugee who had been convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court reduced his jail sentence from 10 years to 7 years. This refugee had initially agreed to leave India after serving his sentence. However, he later asked the Supreme Court for permission to stay in India due to personal reasons, as he had already completed his sentence. 

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 ”, 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 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

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.