In the volatile aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed 26 lives and reignited tensions between India and Pakistan, the diplomatic corridors across the world have lit up. One man at the center of this storm is External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, whose phone has not stopped ringing since the carnage. His outreach and response have formed the backbone of India’s swift and widespread diplomatic campaign.
From Washington and Riyadh to Tehran and Doha, world leaders and foreign ministries have dialed New Delhi with a mix of solidarity, support, and concern, as fears of a military confrontation between two nuclear-armed neighbors continue to rise.
According to Jaishankar’s updates on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), he has spoken to at least 24 counterparts — foreign ministers, ambassadors, and heads of state — in the days following the attack. The Indian government has reportedly received solidarity messages from over 130 countries, a testament to the gravity of the attack and the global condemnation of terrorism.
But as the international chorus of condemnation gradually shifts to appeals for de-escalation, India is facing a diplomatic balancing act — pressing its case against Pakistan while containing the risk of a regional flare-up.
Just hours after the attack, India summoned foreign diplomats and envoys from key countries to underline what it called the “cross-border link” to the terror strike, clearly pointing fingers at Pakistan. The briefing was part of an aggressive diplomatic offensive aimed at not just pinning Pakistan down, but also isolating it on the global stage.
However, calls for restraint are growing louder. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and notably the United States, have urged both countries to step back from the brink.
Iran's Prompt Offer of Mediation
The first country to offer mediation was Iran, with its foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, extending Iran’s “good offices” to foster dialogue between the two South Asian rivals. “India and Pakistan are brotherly neighbours of Iran, enjoying relations rooted in centuries-old cultural and civilizational ties,” he wrote on X. Iran, which has itself been involved in a protracted conflict with Israel, also called the Pahalgam attack a "grave crime" and pushed for international cooperation against terrorism.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Bloc Speak Out
Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud held separate phone calls with both India and Pakistan, reiterating Riyadh’s commitment to regional stability. “The Kingdom calls on both countries to de-escalate, avoid further escalation, and resolve disputes through diplomatic means,” said the official statement.
Qatar, which has increasingly assumed a global mediator role, also appealed for peaceful dialogue and extended “full support” to help defuse tensions. Kuwait's Foreign Ministry echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing that "reason and dialogue" must guide all conflict resolution in the region.
This wave of support from Gulf nations, many of which have begun distancing themselves from Pakistan diplomatically and economically in recent years, marks a significant shift. Traditionally seen as close to Islamabad, several of these nations are now choosing stronger language against terrorism, and more balanced stances when tensions spike in South Asia.
The US: The Strongest Call for Restraint
The most influential voice, however, came from the United States. In back-to-back calls with Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio extended strong words of support for India’s fight against terror but also urged restraint and diplomacy.
Rubio reassured Jaishankar of Washington’s unwavering support in counter-terrorism cooperation but also “encouraged India to work with Pakistan to de-escalate tensions and maintain peace and security in South Asia.” Meanwhile, to Sharif, he conveyed the need for full cooperation in the investigation into the “unconscionable” Pahalgam attack.
Some Signs of Thaw – But Not Enough
As diplomatic engagements continue, there are some early signs of cooling. India on Thursday relaxed the deadline for Pakistani nationals staying in India to return via the Attari-Wagah border, a move interpreted as a gesture of restraint. Meanwhile, there has been a notable silence from top Pakistani leaders in the past 24 hours — a sharp contrast to earlier remarks when a Pakistani minister warned of an imminent Indian attack.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has stated his country’s willingness for a neutral and independent investigation into the April 22 attack. However, India has so far shown little inclination to accept such proposals.
Past Echoes: When Rhetoric Turned Into Action
This cycle of terror, tension, and diplomacy is not new to India and Pakistan. After the Pulwama terror attack in 2019, which left 44 CRPF jawans dead, then-US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reached out to Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj in an attempt to de-escalate. But 11 days later, India conducted airstrikes on Jaish-e-Mohammed training camps in Balakot, inside Pakistan.
The airstrikes triggered an aerial dogfight. Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, piloting a MiG-21, shot down a Pakistani F-16 before being captured. He was released after three days, following intense backchannel diplomacy and pressure from the US.
Similarly, in 2016, after the Uri terror attack, where 19 Indian soldiers were killed, the US again intervened diplomatically. Yet, within days, Indian commandos launched surgical strikes across the LoC, destroying terror launchpads in PoK.
The Road Ahead: Diplomacy vs Deterrence
While India continues to build a strong diplomatic case against Pakistan, the past suggests that it may still resort to decisive military retaliation if provoked beyond a threshold. The Modi government has in the past emphasized that “talks and terror cannot go together,” and any substantial proof linking Pakistan to the Pahalgam attack could push India toward a firm response.
As the world watches with caution, India is navigating a moment of intense strategic and moral calculus. The coming days may decide whether this tragedy becomes another chapter in a long cycle of attacks and retaliation, or if diplomacy can finally push the needle toward long-term peace.
