With the Pakistani delegation touring the world weeks after their Indian counterparts, this is more than just explaining stances but lobbying votes, writes Arnav Raje
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, former Pakistani Foreign Minister and chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), is currently in London. Not for the British summer, but as the spearhead of a Pakistani delegation meant to reframe Pakistan’s image on the global stage. In interviews with BBC Radio 4 and Sky News, Bhutto made clear that this was a diplomatic push to engage the international community – not just in goodwill, but in what’s shaping up to be a Cold War-style campaign between India and Pakistan.
The delegation has been on a multi-city tour, with stops in New York, London, and Brussels. The message? Pakistan wants peace, dialogue, and diplomacy. Bhutto argued that the Kashmir issue is the “unfinished agenda of Partition” and said the lack of a dispute-resolution mechanism between two nuclear-armed neighbours had pushed the entire subcontinent into dangerous territory. He warned that India’s recent declaration – treating any terrorist attack on its soil as an “act of war” has dangerously lowered the threshold for full-blown conflict. He also raised concerns about India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, calling it a “weaponisation of water” that could have devastating humanitarian impacts.
And yet, this isn’t just about ideas. It’s about image. While Bhutto calls for talks, India’s diplomatic blitzkrieg is unfolding simultaneously. Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack and India’s subsequent military response, New Delhi dispatched seven all-party parliamentary delegations across the globe. These delegations, led by prominent figures like Shashi Tharoor – were composed of MPs, diplomats, and former ambassadors. This top diplomatic ring was tasked with defending Operation Sindoor, contextualising India’s decades-long battle with cross-border terrorism, and justifying its new normal: “An act of terror is now an act of war.” However, the Pakistani team was not as comprehensive as India’s because they kept Imran Khan’s PTI MPs from the delegation.
What’s fascinating isn’t just that both countries are sending delegations and delivering fundamentally different narratives. Although conciliatory in form, Pakistan’s message is not entirely in substance. It portrays itself as the rational actor seeking dialogue while reminding the world of its past cooperation with the West with Bhutto citing collaboration with MI6, painting India as the crazy one. India’s narrative, meanwhile, is one of decisive victimhood: enough dialogue, enough dossiers, now action.
It’s hard to ignore the symmetry – and the contradiction. Bhutto says he wants talks. India says they’ve talked before. Bhutto points to openness to investigations. India retorts that it has provided evidence in the past, after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, for instance – which was either rejected or endlessly delayed by Islamabad. The patterns suggest a diplomatic feedback loop with no real output.
This brings us to what this really is: an India-Pakistan Cold War. The missiles have stopped flying for now, but the conflict has not been resolved. These delegations aren’t merely sharing talking points – they’re canvassing global support. This time, it’s a lobbying war, not unlike the ideological tug-of-war seen during the 20th century Cold War. Delhi and Islamabad aren’t just handing pamphlets – they’re forcing the world to choose sides.
To understand the stakes, consider what sparked this most recent flare-up. In early June, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, left several Hindu tourists dead. Unusually brutal, the attackers allegedly verified the victims’ religion and asked them to recite the kalma, an Islamic declaration of faith. Responsibility was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a separatist group India links to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the same organisation responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. India responded with Operation Sindoor – a targeted missile strike campaign on alleged terror bases inside Pakistan. India claimed the strikes were surgically precise with zero civilian casualties.
Pakistan, unsurprisingly, denied the presence of such camps and retaliated with shelling, drone incursions, and artillery fire. A ceasefire was declared after three days, but both countries accused each other of violating it within hours. The skirmishes may have ended, but the diplomatic fallout continues. India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty for the first time in 65 years and formalised its stance that any act of terrorism on Indian soil will be treated as an act of war.
Now, Pakistan is reaching out. But India isn’t listening. Bhutto says Islamabad is open to investigation and dialogue. New Delhi says it has had enough. What is interesting here is even if India were to agree, history suggests Pakistan would likely question the evidence again, leading to an impasse. So we return to that echo chamber – calls for talks, accusations of stonewalling, and mutual disbelief. An innocent one would spend days searching for a middle ground in their rhetoric and still come up empty-handed, because there is none.
This is not a negotiation. It’s a grander game, of which these delegations are simply prelude. All both sides are waiting for, is for the other to reveal the venue : Geneva, New York, or the valleys of Kashmir, putting millions of lives at stake again. What’s also going to be at stake this time is the allegiance of global actors. Both India and Pakistan are ensuring that if things go south, the world won’t be neutral. It will already have chosen sides.
Which brings us to the most sobering reality of all: Silence at the border isn’t necessarily peace. It is strategy, time to reload.
