Author: Syed Akbaruddin
Publication: The Times of India
Date: June 11, 2025
URL:    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-plus/politics/what-our-mps-said-and-heard/articleshow/121782131.cms

Post-Op Sindoor global outreach by teams of parliamentarians gave a clear idea of how key countries endorse India’s position on terror, and also how they carefully scrutinise actions of a rising power

Over 10 days, across seven cities in four countries, I was part of a multiparty Indian delegation engaging the Global South – not only to explain Operation Sindoor, but to understand how India’s actions are seen in a changing world.

Our meetings in Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa, and Qatar spanned political leadership, civil society, business leaders, think tanks, and diaspora networks. What emerged was more than goodwill. It was a revealing picture of India’s image in the Global South today: not just as a reliable partner, but as a rising power. A country whose actions are carefully studied, and whose voice carries both weight and principle.

The delegation reflected the breadth of India’s democracy. Led by opposition MP Supriya Sule, it included five former Union ministers – Anand Sharma, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Manish Tewari, V Muraleedharan, and Anurag Thakur – along with TDP MP Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu and AAP MP Vikramjit Sahney. This wasn’t partisan diplomacy. It was India speaking in one voice, and was recognised as such.

India’s response to the Pahalgam massacre – precise and proportionate strikes from May 7 to 10 – was clearly understood. There was no scepticism, no demand for proof of Pakistan’s complicity. The operation was seen for what it was: lawful, limited, and necessary. Crucially, none equated or “hyphenated” India and Pakistan. The Indian diaspora served as a bridge. They amplified what we were there to say.

In our conversations, three consistent themes emerged: terrorism, sovereignty, and regional stability. The aim of our outreach wasn’t to win approval. It was to state the facts, present India’s position clearly, and speak with assurance, not volume. The message resonated: sovereignty cannot shield terrorism; non-state actors cannot hide behind borders. Zero tolerance for terrorism is not a slogan – it’s an imperative. In Africa and West Asia, where many states face similar challenges, and have experienced the same kind of terrorist violence that India faces, these principles weren’t just understood – they were shared.

Operation Sindoor also marked a shift in how India communicates globally. Public diplomacy didn’t rest solely with career diplomats. Elected representatives played a role in widening the conversation and making it more relatable. Even those who weren’t entirely aligned with India’s ‘new normal’ left with a clearer sense of where the country stands – and why.

Security led many discussions, but economic interest was never far behind. During the visit, news broke that India will likely become the world’s fourth-largest economy by year-end. That milestone may have added momentum to the growing interest in India as a partner. The desires expressed were clear: Egyptian business talked of joint ventures, South Africans desired resilient supply chains, and Ethiopians wanted shared platforms. From fintech and digital infra to clean energy and health tech, countries of the Global South are turning to India as a source of solutions.

Just as important as what we said abroad was what we brought back home. Our feedback sessions with the Prime Minister and the external affairs minister showed that Indian diplomacy is moving towards a more collaborative model. We spoke with one voice outside, and returned with lessons that can inform future policy. That two-way approach, combining consensual outreach with reflection about the evolving global realities, is a model worth continuing.

Naturally, global engagement also brought tough questions. One that came up repeatedly, in the Arab world, was: where does India stand on Palestine?
India’s record is consistent. It has never voted against Palestine at UN. It supports a two-state solution. In the past decade, both the Indian President and PM have visited Ramallah independently. India has increased its funding to UNRWA even as others pulled back. Bilateral assistance continues, and humanitarian concerns have been voiced.

Yet in today’s polarised world, nuance can appear as hesitation. Even principled abstentions are sometimes read as silence – and silence, in times of crisis, is misinterpreted as complicity.

Under Modi, India has been diplomatically assertive and confident. That has earned attention. But with attention comes greater scrutiny. The world no longer just asks what India does – it asks what is India saying, and what it chooses not to say.

This paradox, India must navigate. As its profile rises, the world is assessing both India’s actions and its silence. India is not required to comment on every crisis. But statecraft means recognising when silence sends a message. Silence can carry meaning and it can shape perceptions just as much as words.

The Global South is not monolithic. Its interests and ideologies differ. But the takeaway from the visit was that a common thread is emerging: a desire for leadership that is firm, fair and principled. In a time of uncertainty India is well positioned to meet that requirement. People are paying closer attention to the India story than ever before. Affection for India across the Global South runs deep, but it doesn’t preclude scrutiny. The Operation Sindoor visit underscored that such scrutiny is not limited to issues on the immediate Indian agenda but goes into the wider theatre of international affairs.

The question now is not whether India will lead, but how.

As India’s role expands, the expectations around its voice will increase – especially in a multipolar world where credibility is being shaped not only by military action and economic heft, but also by consistency, clarity, and conviction. For India, this is an opportunity not just to assert power, but to articulate purpose.