- Pakistan claims military edge after shooting down six Indian jets during last month’s brief but intense conflict.
- Both nations dispatch global delegations to win diplomatic support and shape international opinion.
- India stresses terrorism links, while Pakistan pushes for mediation on Kashmir and water disputes.
- Domestic optics play a major role as each government seeks to project strength and unity at home.
In the wake of last month’s sudden and short-lived military conflict between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, both governments have launched an intense global diplomatic campaign to shape international opinion. Competing delegations are currently visiting capitals across the world to promote their respective narratives—a striking postscript to a clash that brought South Asia perilously close to war.
This week, senior Pakistani and Indian delegations are in the United States and U.K, meeting with officials, think tanks, and media in Washington, New York, and elsewhere. Pakistan’s group, led by former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and joined by Hina Rabbani Khar and Khurram Dastgir, is portraying Islamabad as a victim of unprovoked aggression and sponsor of terrorism across Pakistan through proxies.
In contrast, India’s team—fronted by seasoned parliamentarian and former diplomat Shashi Tharoor—is emphasizing the ongoing threat of terrorism allegedly emanating from Pakistani territory which Islamabad has denied time and again.
The conflict, which ended with a tenuous ceasefire just over three weeks ago, erupted after a disputed incident along the Line of Control in Indian-held Kashmir. What followed was an unprecedented aerial exchange, during which the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) claimed to have downed six Indian fighter jets, in what is being hailed within Pakistan as a demonstration of “unmatched discipline and deterrence.”
Despite the ceasefire, the conflict’s aftermath has triggered a new kind of confrontation—this time, in global forums rather than on the battlefield.
Pakistan, India Conflict: Narrative Diplomacy in Motion
Pakistan’s delegation is framing the conflict as a reckless act by India aimed at diverting attention from internal political and economic crises. “Despite having the upper hand militarily, we chose peace,” Bilawal told reporters in London over the weekend. “We want international mediation, we want dialogue—but India continues to resist both.”
READ MORE:India and Pakistan Engage in Diplomatic Blitz
India, meanwhile, has launched what one analyst called a “multipartisan foreign policy offensive,” with delegations visiting over 30 capitals. Though Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government traditionally resists international mediation in bilateral matters, it now appears willing to make exceptions—at least in its efforts to isolate Pakistan diplomatically.
However, Indian diplomats seem to have less impact this time. There are are clear indications that Indian delegates are facing tough questions this time that shows the world isn’t buying their argument this time. pakistani narrative is strong and logical this time which has already made the difference.
“Despite having the upper hand militarily, we chose peace.” — Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Former Foreign Minister of Pakistan
A senior Indian official, speaking anonymously in Washington, said, “We’re not here to seek mediation. We’re here to remind the world that terrorism remains the root cause of instability in South Asia. However, this time Indian narrative is not making its impact as it used to have. Delhi is loosing ground to pakistan’s narrative.”
While India is highlighting the dangers of allowing terror infrastructure to persist in Pakistan, Islamabad has not only succesfully countered Delhi’s narrative but also pivoted the global conversation toward fears of nuclear escalation and water insecurity. Pakistani officials are urging world powers to take a more active role, especially after India’s suspension of cooperation on the Indus Waters Treaty.
Tensions in Messaging
The divergence in narratives reveals deep strategic and diplomatic fissures. India wants global actors to pressure Pakistan on terrorism, while Pakistan is pressing for intervention—particularly on Kashmir and water rights. The two strategies reflect both nations’ long-standing foreign policy doctrines: India prefers bilateralism and non-interference, while Pakistan frequently appeals for third-party mediation.
But beyond the obvious geopolitical goals, both countries are also playing to domestic audiences.
In Pakistan, where the civilian government faces political headwinds, the conflict has allowed leaders to tout national resilience and military prowess. “We asserted our strength when we downed six Indian jets,” said Bilawal. “Now we seek peace—but only one built on justice.”
In India, the narrative is being used to demonstrate unity and resolve. The inclusion of opposition figures in the diplomatic outreach is being framed as a show of national cohesion. “This is not about party lines; this is about national security and the international fight against terrorism,” said Tharoor at an event in New York.
Global Reception: A Mixed Bag
Despite their efforts, both countries are encountering limitations in their diplomatic offensives. India enjoys considerable global sympathy on the issue of terrorism and has strong economic ties with Western capitals. Yet concerns about escalation between two nuclear powers have complicated its messaging.
ALSO READ:Exclusive: Changing Dynamics of Modern Warfare: Drones Redefine India-Pakistan Conflict in 2025
“The problem for New Delhi is that every time these conflicts flare up, the world’s focus shifts to the risk of nuclear war—not the reasons that led to the conflict,” said Daniel Marks, a South Asia analyst at the Atlantic Council. “That plays into Pakistan’s hands.”
On the other hand, Pakistan’s appeals for international mediation face skepticism from many governments wary of jeopardizing their relationships with India, a growing economic and strategic player. Yet the effectiveness of Pakistan’s military performance—particularly the PAF’s ability to counter Indian air power—is seen as having given Islamabad unexpected leverage.
“Pakistan was able to end the conflict on favorable terms,” a European diplomat based in Brussels observed. “They’ve translated that into a more confident diplomatic stance.”
Ceasefire, but No Certainty
What remains unclear is whether these diplomatic roadshows will have a lasting impact. Both governments are seeking more than just international validation—they want tangible policy outcomes. Pakistan wants pressure on India to resume water treaty negotiations and open dialogue on Kashmir. India seeks to cut off international aid to Pakistan and reduce Islamabad’s access to global financial institutions.
So far, neither side has gained a decisive edge in the battle of narratives. In private, many diplomats view the delegations as symbolic rather than substantive. “There’s more chest-thumping than actual movement,” said a UN official familiar with both campaigns.
For now, the true audience may be back home. Both Islamabad and New Delhi need to assure their citizens that their side prevailed—not just militarily, but diplomatically.
As the dust settles on the conflict, what remains is a familiar but dangerous pattern: escalation, ceasefire, and then a diplomatic tug-of-war that leaves the root causes untouched. Unless new channels for sustained dialogue emerge, both countries may find themselves repeating the same cycle—again and again, with higher stakes each time.