A closer examination of international responses, diplomatic statements, and geopolitical alignments reveals a very different reality. Far from being diplomatically abandoned, India received strong global backing, especially in its fight against cross-border terrorism
In the wake of the heinous Pahalgam terror attack and India’s swift, precise military response through Operation Sindoor, a digital narrative began trending: #IndiaAlone. It wasn’t just an organic social media wave-it was a carefully constructed piece of cognitive warfare, seeded by Pakistani-aligned media outlets and amplified by Chinese and Turkish media ecosystems. The message was simple but potent: India, in taking decisive action against cross-border terrorism, had allegedly isolated itself diplomatically.
Yet a closer examination of international responses, diplomatic statements, and geopolitical alignments reveals a very different reality. Far from being diplomatically abandoned, India received strong global backing, especially in its fight against cross-border terrorism. This makes it imperative to unpack, challenge, and dismantle the ‘India Alone’ narrative-point by point.
Origin of ‘#IndiaAlone’ Hashtag?
The narrative’s roots can be traced directly to Pakistan’s strategic propaganda machinery. Following the 22 April terror attack in Pahalgam, Pakistan not only dismissed responsibility but rapidly launched an influence campaign, extending from the Indus Waters Treaty controversy to misinformation around Operation Sindoor.
By early May, former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto issued dire warnings after India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty. Around 4 May, Radio Pakistan actively pushed this emerging narrative, predicting India’s diplomatic fallout. Soon after, during the peak of Operation Sindoor (9-10 May), Pakistani media outlets and social platforms began asserting-not just predicting-India’s isolation.
An analysis of X (formerly Twitter) posts from 11-12 May revealed the majority of users tweeting with the #IndiaAlone tag were based in Pakistan, or were part of overseas anti-India groups-especially Pakistani diaspora in London and Khalistani elements in Canada. A key component of their strategy was to attempt sectarian division, particularly by portraying Sikh sentiments as separate from broader Indian national interests.
Media Collusion and International Amplification
Pakistan’s narrative-building extended into international journalism. Several journalists of Pakistani origin working for global outlets like CNN, Bloomberg, Reuters, and the New York Times produced stories that either questioned India’s military response or subtly downplayed the terror aspect of the Pahalgam attacks.
On 14 May, Disinfo Lab published findings that a significant number of stories minimising the terror dimension or questioning India’s legitimacy came from writers with known affiliations to Pakistan. The intent was clear: reframe the aggressor as the victim, and the victim as the provocateur.
This was not a solo act by Pakistan. China, Turkey, and Qatar-often at geopolitical odds with India-joined in. Chinese-language platforms on Baidu, and Turkish state media like TRT World and Anadolu Agency, consistently pushed the “India Isolated†theme. Interestingly, this wasn’t the first time such a narrative was deployed-it had circulated within Chinese media ecosystems even before 31 March 2025, well before the launch of Operation Sindoor.
China’s motivations are rooted in hard strategic interests. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir-an area of deep concern to India.
With this route providing access to the Indian Ocean and serving as a lifeline to China’s Xinjiang region, any Indian military action threatens Chinese stakes directly. Further, with the Trump administration easing tariffs on China, Beijing no longer feels the same diplomatic need to appease New Delhi-a factor that explains its open backing of Pakistan.
The Real Global Response: Far from Isolation
Despite the online cacophony, the actual diplomatic response from around the world was overwhelmingly supportive of India. Contrary to what the narrative suggested, key global powers acknowledged India’s right to respond decisively to terrorism:
a) United States: Condemned the Pahalgam attack, expressed condolences, and affirmed India’s right to self-defence.
b) United Kingdom: Foreign Secretary David Lammy and former PM Rishi Sunak offered unequivocal support.
c) France: Expressed “unwavering solidarity†with India.
d) Russia: Urged restraint, but recognised the legitimacy of India’s response.
e) Israel: Applauded India’s anti-terror response and supported its sovereignty. Furthermore, countries across Asia, Europe, the Gulf, and even Palestine extended support. Nations such as Japan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Mauritius, and Australia condemned the terror attack and upheld India’s sovereign right to respond.
A report by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) found that 123 nations issued independent statements backing India, with no major power opposing Operation Sindoor. If anything, this showed a global diplomatic convergence, not isolation.
China, Turkey, and Azerbaijan
Only three nations-China, Turkey, and Azerbaijan-openly backed Pakistan after its failed retaliation attempts. These alignments are neither new nor surprising. China and Pakistan call themselves “all-weather allies,†though the relationship is transactional-based on military cooperation and Chinese investment.
With Chinese-made weapons now facing their first real combat test in the India-Pakistan theatre, Beijing had a vested interest in managing perception. Any indication that Indian, French, or Russian systems outperformed Chinese hardware would damage China’s arms export credibility.
Turkey’s motivations are rooted in its neo-Ottoman ambitions. President Erdo?an aspires to a leadership role in the global Islamic community, positioning Ankara as a challenger to Saudi Arabia’s dominance. Turkey’s support for Pakistan is part of this strategy, also reflected in its support for Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia-where India sided with Armenia.
The Russia Factor
Critics noted that Russia’s muted stance reflected a shift away from its historical closeness with India. However, such a reading is simplistic.
India continues to rely on Russia for defence technology-from S-400 missile systems to the BrahMos missile programme. During the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India resisted Western pressure to condemn Moscow, maintaining a nuanced stance rooted in strategic autonomy.
One reason for Russia’s measured tone could be the involvement of the Trump administration in ceasefire negotiations. With Trump’s unpredictability in foreign policy, Moscow may have preferred to observe and wait. This does not amount to strategic drift, but rather, realpolitik diplomacy in action.
Pakistan Hyphenation
A more worrying trend is the possible revival of the India-Pakistan hyphenation in Washington D.C., especially with Trump’s potential return to the White House. This outdated framing-treating both countries as equal stakeholders-ignores ground realities. During a recent West Asia tour, Trump appeared to take a transactional diplomatic approach, meeting leaders from Qatar and others as though collecting “tributes.†Such performative diplomacy risks undermining the mature, growing U.S.-India strategic partnership forged over the past two decades.
India’s Communication Strategy
One of the standout aspects of Operation Sindoor was India’s internal narrative management. The Ministry of Defence and the Press Information Bureau provided timely, fact-based updates, helping shape domestic understanding. India’s Ambassador to the U.S. and High Commissioner to the U.K. actively engaged with international stakeholders.
Further, the All-Party Delegation, split into seven outreach groups, worked to disseminate India’s perspective globally-an effective initiative that should be institutionalised.
Still, more is needed. Information statecraft must become a national priority. As India rises on the world stage, it must build systems that can counter disinformation in real-time, especially in a digital landscape where perception often precedes truth.
Conclusion
The ‘India Alone’ narrative is not just a falsehood-it is a strategic attempt to weaken India’s diplomatic muscle through cognitive warfare. It was seeded, amplified, and repeated by known actors with clear motives: Pakistan, China, Turkey, and their associated media arms. But facts tell a different story. India is not alone-not diplomatically, not strategically, and certainly not morally. The world is watching, and most of it is watching with India, not against it.
In the modern age, the battles of narratives are as vital as battles on the ground. India’s success in Operation Sindoor extended beyond military strikes-it lay equally in countering misinformation and affirming its global voice. The next step is to institutionalise this capability and ensure that India’s story is told loud, clear, and globally-by India itself.
(Arpan A Chakravarty is a Research Fellow at India Foundation and Tejusvi Shukla is a Doctoral Candidate at OP Jindal University. Views expressed are personal)
