Editorial: India’s lonely war on terror
If counter-terrorism cannot be a unifying pillar, then a question mark hangs over the core objectives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
India has been virtually waging a lonely battle against cross-border terrorism with little or no help even from those nations that make lofty claims about commitment to combating global terrorism. Though New Delhi has been a victim of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for decades, it was only after the 9/11 terror strikes in the heart of America that the international community, particularly the Western countries, woke up to the seriousness of the problem. But, then, there has been a stunning duplicity when it comes to denouncing terror acts that have roots in Pakistan. The deliberations at the recent meeting of the Defence Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Qingdao, China, once again proved that India should not rely on multilateral forums in its fight against terrorism. The meeting omitted any reference to the horrific terror attack in Kashmir’s Pahalgam on April 22. India, represented by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, did the right thing by refusing to sign the SCO joint statement and insisting that the statement must explicitly mention the Pahalgam attack to highlight the ongoing threat of terrorism in the region. It is clear that Pakistan used its clout to block the proposal. What is more shocking is that the joint statement included references to militant activities in the restive Balochistan province. This blatant duplicity shows that the SCO meeting skewed the outcome in favour of Pakistan’s narrative. The experience is a reminder that India’s war on terror has been a lonely battle in the past and will remain so in the future.
Unfortunately, the global community has so far failed to achieve consensus on dealing with the menace of terrorism. While the SCO has often projected itself as a Eurasian pillar of security cooperation, the inability to agree on the definition or mention of terrorism — especially after a daredevilry attack targeting tourists of a particular religion — renders that claim increasingly hollow. India’s refusal to endorse the final statement reflects not just New Delhi’s firm stance but also the limits of multilateralism. Cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan is one of the major concerns of India. But, Islamabad continues to be in a denial mode and hoodwinks the international community through obfuscation and a smokescreen of counter-terrorism measures. China’s vague characterisation of the meeting as having “achieved successful results” only sharpens the contrast between public diplomacy and private dysfunction. Beijing, keen to preserve the image of SCO unity, may prefer ambiguity over substance, but that posture also limits the organisation’s credibility. If SCO defence ministers cannot even acknowledge the targeting of civilians in a terrorist attack, holding such meetings becomes pointless as they only serve empty symbolism. Vague and ambiguous statements and photo opportunities are no substitute for actionable solidarity. If counter-terrorism cannot be a unifying pillar, then a question mark hangs over the core objectives of the SCO.
