Diplomatic victories are not always announced with sanctions, censures or the naming of an adversary. Sometimes they are contained in a few carefully negotiated words that fundamentally alter the international narrative. The latest BRICS declaration on terrorism is one such moment for India.
By unequivocally condemning the Pahalgam terrorist attack and adopting strong language against cross-border movement of terrorists, terrorist financing, safe havens and double standards in dealing with terrorism, BRICS has strengthened an argument India has been making before the world for decades: terrorism cannot be legitimised by political explanations, nor can countries selectively distinguish between terrorists according to their strategic convenience.
Pakistan has not been expressly named. That fact should neither be concealed nor exaggerated. Yet the political significance of the declaration lies precisely in the terminology accepted by a diverse group of important nations.
For India, the development represents an important diplomatic achievement. For Pakistan, it presents an increasingly uncomfortable question: how long can the international narrative surrounding cross-border terrorism remain separated from the infrastructure, organisations and ideological networks that India has repeatedly accused of operating from Pakistani territory?
Pahalgam Changes the Diplomatic Conversation
The brutal terrorist attack at Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, in which 26 people were killed, was not allowed to disappear into the long list of terrorist incidents suffered by India.
India made it an international diplomatic issue.
The BRICS declaration’s condemnation of the attack in the strongest terms gives the tragedy an important multilateral dimension. More significantly, the condemnation comes alongside language dealing with cross-border terrorism, financing and safe havens.
That combination matters.
India has consistently maintained that terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir cannot be viewed merely through the prism of a political dispute. Terrorists require weapons, training, finance, communications, recruitment networks and places from which to operate. Fighting terrorism therefore requires action not merely against the individual who pulls the trigger but against the entire ecosystem that enables him.That principle has now received significant endorsement within BRICS.
China’s Signature Changes the Equation
The most interesting part of the development is not the position taken by countries traditionally sympathetic to India’s concerns. It is China’s participation in the consensus.
China remains Pakistan’s closest strategic partner. The China-Pakistan relationship is deep, institutional and unlikely to be fundamentally altered by one diplomatic declaration. But that is not the point.
The point is that Beijing has joined a consensus which condemns the Pahalgam attack while simultaneously endorsing zero tolerance towards terrorism and opposition to cross-border movement of terrorists, terrorist financing and safe havens.
China cannot reasonably be expected to abandon Pakistan. But Pakistan also cannot indefinitely assume that its strategic relationship with China will insulate it from every international consensus on terrorism. That is an important shift.
It gives India diplomatic space to argue in future international forums that the principles accepted at BRICS must also be reflected when specific terrorist organisations, individuals, financing structures and support networks come under scrutiny. The real test of the declaration will therefore come after the summit.
Pakistan’s Narrative Space Is Shrinking
It would be premature to claim that Pakistan has become internationally isolated. Pakistan maintains important relationships with China, Gulf countries, the United States and several other powers. What is increasingly becoming isolated, however, is a particular narrative surrounding terrorism.
The international community has progressively become less receptive to distinctions between supposedly acceptable and unacceptable forms of terrorism. The proposition that violence against civilians can somehow acquire legitimacy because of a territorial, religious or political grievance is becoming harder to defend. This is where India’s diplomatic campaign has made considerable progress.
New Delhi’s argument is simple: there cannot be good terrorists and bad terrorists. A terrorist cannot become acceptable merely because his target happens to serve somebody else’s geopolitical interests. The BRICS rejection of double standards reinforces precisely this principle.
Modi’s Foreign Policy Pays Dividends
The declaration also demonstrates the value of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s multidirectional foreign policy. India today engages simultaneously with countries that frequently disagree with one another.
It participates in the Quad while remaining one of the principal members of BRICS. It maintains its historic relationship with Russia while building an increasingly consequential partnership with the United States. It has dramatically expanded its engagement with the Gulf countries while maintaining close relations with Israel. At the same time, despite big differences with China, India continues engaging Beijing wherever national interests require it.
This strategic autonomy has occasionally been criticised as difficult to balance. But BRICS demonstrates its usefulness.
India has managed to place its core security concerns before a grouping containing countries with dramatically different geopolitical interests and secure a meaningful consensus. That strengthens India’s credibility as an independent global power rather than an appendage of any geopolitical bloc.
What Comes Next?
The diplomatic battle will now move from declarations to implementation.
India is likely to invoke the BRICS language at the United Nations and other multilateral forums whenever questions involving terrorist financing, safe havens or designation of terrorist individuals and organisations arise.
The second consequence could be greater pressure upon Pakistan to demonstrate that action against terrorist organisations operating from its territory is genuine, irreversible and comprehensive.
The third—and perhaps most important—test concerns China.
If Beijing has endorsed zero tolerance and opposition to double standards at BRICS, India can legitimately expect these principles to be reflected when terrorism-related questions arise before international institutions. New Delhi should consistently remind the international community of this commitment.
India should also push the debate beyond condemnation of individual attacks. Terrorism cannot be defeated merely by issuing statements after innocent people have been murdered. The infrastructure preceding the attack has to be dismantled.
Follow the money. Identify the recruiters. Expose the ideological ecosystem. Destroy safe havens. Punish those who provide logistical support.
And ensure that states cannot evade responsibility when terrorist infrastructure is allowed to operate from their territory. That should constitute the next stage of India’s diplomatic campaign.
A Battle India Is Gradually Winning
For decades, India frequently found itself explaining terrorism to a world that viewed violence in Jammu and Kashmir primarily through the lens of an India-Pakistan dispute. That international discourse has changed considerably.
The world today understands terrorism differently. September 11 changed the United States. Terror attacks changed Europe. ISIS demonstrated the global reach of extremist ideology. Countries across Asia, Africa and the Middle East have themselves suffered devastating terrorism. India’s warnings therefore resonate differently today.
The BRICS declaration should be understood against this larger transformation. Pakistan has not been formally condemned. It has not been named. Nor should India manufacture claims beyond what the declaration actually says. India does not need to. The language itself tells the story.
When a major international grouping containing China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia and India condemns the Pahalgam terrorist attack while simultaneously speaking of cross-border movement of terrorists, financing, safe havens, zero tolerance and rejection of double standards, the diplomatic direction is unmistakable.
The message from New Delhi is clear: terrorism cannot have a justification, terrorists cannot have privileged sanctuaries, and those who enable terrorism cannot indefinitely escape international scrutiny. India’s challenge now is to convert this diplomatic consensus into sustained international action.
If it succeeds, the BRICS declaration may eventually be remembered as more than carefully drafted diplomatic language. It could mark another decisive stage in India’s decades-long effort to change the world’s understanding of cross-border terrorism.
Pakistan may not have been named in New Delhi. But the space available for the old arguments is getting smaller. And sometimes in diplomacy, isolation begins not when a country is named, but when the world stops accepting its narrative.
(The Authors are spokespersons of BJP and can be reached at: [email protected])
