In the early hours of May 7, 2025, India launched a series of targeted strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The operation was a retaliatory response to the deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians and injured many others. The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, was responsible for this brutal attack—the deadliest targeting civilians in nearly two decades. India’s strike on terror camps across the border has significantly escalated tensions between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours.
What is Operation Sindoor?
In the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, India launched a coordinated tri-service military operation, codenamed ‘Operation Sindoor’, aimed at neutralising the operational capabilities of terrorist groups responsible for repeated incursions into Indian territory. The strike was seen as inevitable, given the clear cross-border involvement in the Pahalgam attack. Investigation by Indian agencies confirmed communication links between the terrorists who carried out the attack and their handlers based in Pakistan.
The operation, described by Indian officials as a “focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”, targeted nine identified terrorist infrastructure sites believed to be used for planning and directing attacks against India. These sites included: Markaz Subhan Allah (Bahawalpur), Markaz Taiba (Muridke), Sarjal (Sialkot), Mehmoona Joya (Sialkot), Barnala (Bhimber), Abbas (Kotli), Gulpur (Kotli), Sawai Nala (Muzaffarabad), Syedna Bilal (Muzaffarabad).
In an official statement, India clarified that no Pakistani military facilities were targeted, emphasising that the intent was to hold those responsible for the Pahalgam attack accountable. According to media reports, at least 31 people were killed and 57 injured in Indian strikes on terrorist infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
The operation’s name—Sindoor, a red vermilion powder traditionally worn by married Hindu women on their foreheads or in the parting of their hair—carries deep symbolic significance. By naming it ‘Operation Sindoor’, the military action is widely seen as a tribute to the women who lost their husbands in the Pahalgam attack, framing the strike as both an act of justice and a symbolic gesture of retribution.
How did the major powers respond?
Responding to the Indian military strikes, U.S. President Donald Trump remarked, “They’ve gone for tit-for-tat, so hopefully they can stop now”, signalling Washington’s tacit acceptance of India’s right to retaliate. Further clarifying the US position, Vice-President JD Vance told Fox News, “What we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit, but we’re not going to get involved in the middle of a war that’s fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America’s ability to control it”.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has not issued a personal statement, but Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed deep concern over “the increased military confrontation between India and Pakistan”. The statement reaffirmed that “Russia strongly condemns acts of terrorism, opposes any of its manifestations and emphasises the need to unite the efforts of the entire world community to effectively combat this evil”. At the same time, it urged both sides to exercise restraint to prevent further escalation and expressed hope that the dispute would be resolved through negotiations, guided by the 1972 Shimla Agreement and the 1999 Lahore Declaration.
China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian described the Indian military operation as ‘regrettable’, urging both sides to act in the larger interest of peace and stability. He emphasised the need for calm and restraint and stated that China is willing to play a role along with the international community in de-escalating the situation.
The British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that the UK is engaging “urgently with both countries, as well as other international partners, encouraging dialogue, de-escalation and the protection of civilians”. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy echoed similar concerns, emphasising the seriousness of the situation. Hamish Falconer, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, acknowledged in a Parliamentary debate that Pakistan has been plagued by terrorist threats within its own borders. He asserted that Pakistan “must do more to seek to tackle that threat”.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, in an interview, said, “We understand India’s desire to protect itself against the scourge of terrorism, but we obviously call on both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint to avoid escalation”. Echoing the stand, the French Embassy in India posted on X that “France is deeply concerned about the latest developments between India and Pakistan”, while also affirming that “France supports India in its fight against terrorist groups”.
Japan’s Foreign Minister IWAYA Takeshi urged both nations to exercise restraint and resolve their differences through dialogue, highlighting Japan’s interest in maintaining peace and stability in South Asia.
How did the Global South respond?
Among India’s South Asian neighbours, Nepal expressed concern over the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. While it did not explicitly express solidarity with India, the statement affirmed that “Nepal stands together with all in the fight against terrorism”, and emphasised that “Nepal shall not allow any inimical forces to use its soil against its neighbouring countries”.
Sri Lanka took a neutral and balanced stance. Cabinet Spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa, in a press briefing, stated, “Our territorial land, waters, and airspace will not be used by one country against another”. He reaffirmed Sri Lanka’s commitment to its longstanding policy of ‘non-alignment’ in regional geopolitical disputes.
In Southeast Asia, Singapore expressed concern about the military confrontation between India and Pakistan, and called on “both parties to de-escalate tensions through diplomatic means and ensure the safety of all civilians”. Similarly, Indonesia urged restraint, posting on X, “We urge both parties to exercise restraint and prioritise dialogue in resolving the crisis”.
Malaysia, reiterating Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s call for a thorough investigation into the Pahalgam attack, released a statement urging “both sides to exercise maximum restraint and restore channels of communication”. It also reaffirmed Malaysia’s “support for all efforts aimed at de-escalation and meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan”.
Brazil issued a statement expressing “grave concern” over the “military actions in the Kashmir region, in areas administered by both India and Pakistan”. It urged all parties to exercise restraint to prevent further escalation of tensions.
Breaking the broader trend of neutrality, Azerbaijan issued a statement expressing solidarity with Pakistan and condemning Indian military strikes on terrorist infrastructure in the region. Countries including Iran, Qatar, the UAE and Egypt issued general calls for restraint and de-escalation, without taking explicit sides in the conflict.
Notably, Saudi Arabia sought a more proactive diplomatic role in de-escalating the tensions in the region. Its Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Abdel Aljuber, visited both India and Pakistan as part of the Kingdom’s “efforts to de-escalate tensions, end current military confrontations, and promote the resolution of all disputes through dialogue and diplomatic channels”.
In general, most of the Global South adopted a cautious or neutral approach toward India’s Operation Sindoor. However, the silence of India’s neighbour Bangladesh stood out as an exceptional and conspicuous omission.
How did the rest of the world respond?
Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister Jose Manuel Albares held talks with his Indian and Pakistani counterparts, urging restraint amid escalating tensions. Israel’s Ambassador to India posted on X, “Israel supports India’s right for self-defence”.
In contrast, Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan conveyed solidarity with Pakistan following India’s Operation Sindoor. A statement from Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that India’s strikes risk “an all-out war” and condemned “such provocative steps as well as attacks targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure”.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide also urged both India and Pakistan to show restraint. He noted that “this is exactly the type of escalation we hoped to avoid”.
Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani reached out to the foreign ministers of both India and Pakistan, expressing Italy’s willingness to mediate and urging both parties to de-escalate the situation.
How did the UN and other international organisations respond?
In a statement urging military restraint from both India and Pakistan, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that “the world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan”. Offering his good offices to help defuse tensions, he emphasised that “a military solution is no solution”.
The G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union issued a statement condemning the terrorist attack and urging “maximum restraint from both India and Pakistan”. Expressing concern for the safety of civilians on both sides, the statement noted that “further escalation poses a serious threat to regional stability”.
The European Union (EU) also issued a statement calling on both countries to “exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and desist from further attacks to safeguard civilian lives on both sides”. While affirming that those responsible for the Pahalgam attack must be brought to justice, the EU stated, “Every state has the duty and the right to lawfully protect its citizens from acts of terror”.
South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), a regional civil society network, vehemently condemned the ‘Operation Sindoor’ and called on both governments to immediately de-escalate the current war situation. The statement asserted that “the two governments are accountable for all the international destruction and loss of life” and urged both to prioritise “effective and meaningful dialogue and diplomacy” to resolve the crisis.
What are the takeaways or observations?
The global response to Operation Sindoor reveals a few important patterns. Firstly, the major powers are primarily concerned about the risk of escalation in the region, particularly due to fears of a potential nuclear confrontation, even though they mostly acknowledged India’s right to retaliate against terrorist attacks.
Secondly, India’s continuous efforts to build stronger ties with the Global South haven’t translated into diplomatic backing during this crisis. Most of the countries in the Global South either remained silent on the matter or issued appeals for de-escalation. Even with credible evidence pointing to Pakistan’s involvement in cross-border terrorism, no nation openly declared support for India’s actions.
Thirdly, a few countries, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan, have issued statements condemning India’s strikes on terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. Such actions not only challenge India’s fight against terrorism but also raise questions about global unity in counterterrorism efforts.
