Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit 2025 in China was one of the most significant geopolitical gatherings in recent years, bringing together three global superpowers—China, Russia, and India—alongside important regional players like Pakistan, Iran, and Central Asian nations at a time when the world stands on the edge of political, economic, and military upheaval. With NATO reasserting itself, the United States under President Donald Trump weaponizing tariffs, and regional flashpoints from Ukraine to Gaza and South Asia, this summit carried the potential to reshape global alliances and strengthen multilateral cooperation. Yet instead of emerging as a defining moment, the summit became a missed opportunity, largely because of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s confrontational conduct, misplaced priorities, and provocative statements that derailed the possibility of a unified SCO declaration and weakened the bloc’s collective response to Western dominance.
The SCO Summit was convened at a critical moment in global geopolitics. The world today faces unprecedented instability: Trump’s aggressive tariff regime has weaponized global trade, disrupting supply chains and punishing economies, including India, China, and Russia. In South Asia, India and Pakistan recently faced a dangerous military confrontation that brought the region to the brink of a devastating war, averted only by a fragile ceasefire that saved thousands of lives. In Europe, the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to destabilize global energy markets, while Trump’s attempts at mediation have thus far failed. In East Asia, the United States has escalated tensions with China by establishing long- and short-range missile facilities in Japan and creating a defensive ring stretching across the South China Sea and Pacific, posing a direct strategic threat to Beijing. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Israel’s relentless campaign in Gaza and the West Bank has resulted in widespread displacement, civilian casualties, and annexation of Palestinian lands, sparking outrage across Asia and beyond.
Against this backdrop, the SCO—representing 40% of the world’s population and nearly 30% of global GDP—had a historic opportunity to chart an independent course, strengthen regional alliances, and collectively respond to Western economic, political, and military dominance. It could have laid the foundation for greater economic cooperation, explored trade settlements in yuan or local currencies, and spoken with a unified voice on sovereignty, security, and development. Instead, much of this potential was lost because of India’s confrontational approach and Modi’s controversial conduct, which distracted the forum from its central objectives and deepened divisions within the bloc.
Prime Minister Modi used the SCO platform to pursue his domestic political agenda, prioritizing confrontation over cooperation. One of the clearest examples was his relentless focus on targeting Pakistan over terrorism. Despite the fact that all SCO members collectively condemn terrorism in all its forms, Modi repeatedly singled out Pakistan, making direct accusations and threatening punitive measures. His language transformed what should have been a constructive, collaborative conversation into a politically charged confrontation. Rather than using the forum to strengthen regional security frameworks, Modi alienated Pakistan and created unnecessary friction with China and Russia, both of whom see Islamabad as a strategic partner in South Asia.
Tensions escalated further when Modi openly criticized China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), declaring that “connectivity loses its meaning if it bypasses sovereignty,” an unmistakable reference to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which runs through disputed territory in Kashmir. While sovereignty concerns may be valid, raising the issue in this forum and framing it as an attack on China undermined the spirit of regional integration that the SCO seeks to promote. With over 150 countries engaged in BRI-related projects and billions of dollars in infrastructure, trade, and investment flows tied to the initiative, Modi’s remarks risked alienating not just China but many other SCO members benefiting from the program. Instead of working toward solutions that accommodate national sensitivities while promoting connectivity, India created further discord at a time when unity was critical.
The most controversial moment came when Modi directly urged Russia to end its war in Ukraine, a position that not only ignored the complex dynamics of the conflict but also bypassed the fact that Ukraine is not an SCO member. By effectively assigning blame to Moscow in the presence of President Vladimir Putin, Modi politicized the forum and further strained ties within the organization. At a time when the SCO could have provided a neutral platform for dialogue, India’s unilateral positioning alienated Russia and derailed the possibility of consensus on the conflict’s broader regional and global implications.
The result of these actions was the loss of extraordinary opportunities that could have reshaped Asia’s strategic landscape. The SCO Summit had the potential to create alternative financial and trade mechanisms that would protect member economies from U.S.-imposed sanctions and Trump’s punitive tariffs, including the unprecedented 50% tariffs imposed on Indian exports. A unified SCO response to such measures would have sent a strong message of resilience to Washington. The summit could also have facilitated the creation of alternative supply chain frameworks and currency settlements, boosting regional self-reliance while reducing dependency on Western-controlled systems.
Furthermore, a united SCO could have collectively condemned Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank, asserting the bloc’s moral authority and influence on one of the world’s most pressing humanitarian crises. Similarly, the fragile India-Pakistan ceasefire could have been strengthened through mediation frameworks discussed within the summit. These measures would not only have stabilized the region but also positioned the SCO as a credible alternative to NATO and other Western-led alliances in shaping global security and economic priorities.
Instead, Modi’s confrontational stance turned the summit into a political battlefield, undermining its relevance and weakening its impact. By framing India’s positions as superior and by openly criticizing both Pakistan and China while indirectly challenging Russia, Modi alienated key partners and prevented the SCO from issuing a strong, unified declaration. At a time when collective strength was essential, India’s approach exposed internal divisions and diminished the bloc’s ability to assert its influence on the global stage.
This failure carries far-reaching consequences. India’s conduct risks eroding its credibility as a serious multilateral player and raises doubts among SCO members about its reliability as a partner. More importantly, the fractured summit outcome allows the United States and its Western allies to continue exploiting divisions within Asia, maintaining dominance over trade, finance, and security frameworks without facing an effective counterbalance. The inability of the SCO to deliver a cohesive strategy strengthens Washington’s hand and undermines efforts to build a multipolar global order.
The SCO must now confront difficult questions about its own structure, leadership, and objectives. If the organization is to remain relevant, it needs internal checks and balances to prevent any single member from jeopardizing its collective agenda. Its focus must return to economic integration, infrastructure development, and multilateral coordination in response to Western sanctions and financial coercion. Disputes between members should be addressed diplomatically and privately, ensuring that the organization presents a united front on critical issues like trade, security, and sovereignty.
The SCO Summit 2025 was a rare moment when emerging powers had the chance to reshape the balance of global power and demonstrate Asia’s capacity to define its own future. Representing over 3 billion people, the organization had the influence and authority to strengthen regional integration, reduce dependency on Western systems, and challenge global inequities. But instead of a historic breakthrough, the summit exposed the vulnerability of an organization undermined from within. By pursuing narrow domestic political agendas in an international forum, Prime Minister Modi not only weakened India’s standing but also jeopardized the SCO’s ability to act as a credible counterweight to Western power.
At a time when the world faces escalating conflicts, economic fragmentation, and deepening humanitarian crises, Asia needed leadership, vision, and unity. What it received instead was division, distraction, and paralysis. Unless the SCO learns from this failure and reforms itself to ensure collective purpose and discipline, it risks becoming yet another fractured body—unable to defend the interests of its members and irrelevant in shaping the new world order.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed to respond strongly to any future “terrorist attack”, after four days of military exchanges with neighbouring Pakistan.

“This is not an era of war, but this is also not an era of terror,” Modi said in his first public address since days of intense shelling and aerial incursions, carried out by both sides, began.

These followed a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people, for which India blamed a Pakistan-based group. Islamabad has strongly denied backing the group in question.

The US-brokered ceasefire agreed between the nuclear-armed neighbours at the weekend appears to have held so far.

Both nations say they remain vigilant.

“If another terrorist attack against India is carried out, a strong response will be given,” Modi said in his speech on Monday.

“Terror and trade talks cannot happen together,” he remarked. This was most likely a reference to comments from US President Donald Trump, who said he had told India and Pakistan his administration would only trade with them if they end the conflict.

“Similarly, water and blood cannot flow together,” Modi added, this time referring to the suspension of a water treaty between India and Pakistan.

• ANALYSIS: How backchannels and US mediators pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink

Earlier, top military officials from India and Pakistan discussed finer details of the ceasefire agreed between them over the weekend.

According to the Indian army, the two sides spoke about the need to refrain from any aggressive action.

“It was also agreed that both sides consider immediate measures to ensure troop reduction from the borders and forward areas,” it said in a statement.

Announcing the ceasefire on Saturday, Trump said “it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many, and so much”.

India announced on Monday that it was reopening 32 airports for civilians that it had earlier said would remain closed until Thursday due to safety concerns.

The recent tensions were the latest in the decades-long rivalry between India and Pakistan, who have fought two wars over Kashmir, a Himalayan region which they claim in full but administer in part.

The hostilities threatened to turn into a fully-fledged war as they appeared unwilling to back down for days.

Both countries have said that dozens of people from both sides died over the four days of fighting last week, partly due to heavy shelling near the de facto border.

After the ceasefire, however, both the rivals have declared military victory.

On 7 May, India reported striking nine targets inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir in response to the 22 April deadly militant attack in the picturesque Pahalgam valley.

In the days after the first strike, India and Pakistan accused each other of cross-border shelling and claimed to have shot down rival drones and aircraft in their airspace.

As the conflict escalated, both nations said they had struck the rival’s military bases.

Indian officials reported striking 11 Pakistan Air Force bases, including one in Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad. India also claimed Pakistan lost 35-40 men at the Line of Control – the de facto border – during the conflict and that its air force lost a few aircraft.

Pakistan has accepted that some Indian projectiles landed at its air force bases.

Indian defence forces have also said that they struck nine armed group training facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing more than 100 militants.

The Pakistan military, in turn, claims it targeted about 26 military facilities in India and that its drones hovered over the capital, Delhi.

India has confirmed that some Pakistani projectiles landed up at its air force bases, though it did not comment on the claim about Delhi.

Pakistan also claims to have shot down five Indian aircraft, including three French Rafales – India has not acknowledged this or commented on the number, though it said on Sunday that “losses are a part of combat”.

Pakistan denied the claims that an Indian pilot was in its custody after she ejected following an aircraft crash. India has also said that “all our pilots are back home”.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In the immediate aftermath of the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam—a heavily militarized yet scenic area of Indian-administered Kashmir—India’s response was marked by outrage rather than introspection. Yet, ten days later, no retaliatory action has occurred. Domestically, Prime Minister Narendra Modi finds himself increasingly isolated, while internationally, India stands diplomatically cornered for attempting to implicate Pakistan without credible evidence. Despite fiery rhetoric, India’s inaction reflects a sobering realization: any military confrontation with Pakistan would be regionally destabilizing, globally condemned, and potentially catastrophic.
India’s restraint from launching punitive strikes against Pakistan can be attributed to four compelling reasons. First, Prime Minister Modi’s narrative failed to gain traction among critical segments of Indian society—including Indian Muslims, ordinary citizens, and even Kashmiris and victims of the attack—many of whom demanded evidence before blaming Pakistan.
Second, Pakistan’s swift and robust military readiness served as a strong deterrent, making any offensive operation risky.
Third, the global community, including major powers like the United States, Russia, China, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations, collectively cautioned India against taking aggressive action without concrete proof.
Lastly, the absence of international support left India diplomatically isolated, forcing it to reconsider any rash military options.
Not a single opposition party supported the call for action against Pakistan. Civil society, religious minorities—including a vocal segment of the Sikh community—and even victims’ families publicly questioned the government’s rush to assign blame without evidence. Interviews conducted with Kashmiri civilians in Pahalgam revealed a powerful counter-narrative: while many condemned the attack, they rejected the notion of Pakistani involvement in the absence of concrete proof. More compellingly, survivors recounted how local Kashmiris risked their own lives to shelter and assist fleeing tourists—an act of humanity that contradicted the vilifying rhetoric being propagated by New Delhi.
The attack was universally condemned—including by Pakistan. Yet, instead of rallying global support, India’s accusations failed to gain traction among international powers or even within its domestic political spectrum. Major global stakeholders—ranging from the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union—issued strong condemnations of the terrorist act but stopped short of echoing India’s allegations.
Pakistan, for its part, responded with urgency and maturity. Its air force, army, and navy were placed on high alert to defend against any incursion, and preparations for a measured counterstrike were reportedly in place. Yet, Islamabad’s official posture remained one of composure and diplomacy. Pakistan reiterated its commitment to peace and offered to form a joint investigation commission—national or international in nature—to identify and prosecute the perpetrators. It was a move that showcased both moral clarity and strategic sophistication.
International reactions reflected this cautious approach. U.S. Vice President JD Vance emphasized the importance of restraint, stating, “Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict,” and urged Pakistan to cooperate in addressing terrorism emanating from its territory. President Donald Trump condemned the attack as “deeply disturbing” and reaffirmed support for India, expressing solidarity with Prime Minister Modi and the Indian populace. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in diplomatic outreach, speaking with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, advocating for de-escalation and cooperation in investigating the attack.
The United Nations and European Union similarly declined to attribute blame without an investigation. The EU’s foreign affairs spokesperson stressed the importance of “thorough, impartial inquiry” before making any judgments. Even traditionally close allies of India, such as France and the UK, withheld any statements implicating Pakistan, instead emphasizing regional peace and counterterrorism cooperation. In short, Modi’s call to arms found no international takers.
This global restraint had a profound effect domestically in both countries. In Pakistan, a prevailing sentiment of vindication emerged. Citizens across ethnic, political, and religious lines rallied in unity—not in fear of war, but in confidence that the truth would prevail.
In India, Modi’s credibility began to erode under scrutiny. The Sikh diaspora, particularly vocal in the UK and Canada, denounced the government’s failure to produce evidence and accused it of communal scapegoating for political gain. They highlighted that diverting water from Pakistan, as threatened by Modi, was both technologically unfeasible and diplomatically provocative.
The credibility gap widened further when local Kashmiri interviews aired on Indian media and social platforms showed ordinary citizens, tourists, and survivors questioning how such a brazen act could occur in a zone saturated with military surveillance. Pahalgam, located hundreds of miles from the Line of Control (LoC), is among the most tightly guarded areas in South Asia. Many questioned how attackers could infiltrate such a zone without insider facilitation or gross security lapses—raising uncomfortable questions for Indian authorities.
Public opinion, even among those not deeply involved in politics, leaned strongly toward peace. A telling anecdote from a Pakistani household illustrates this mood. The author’s wife, observing the situation carefully, made a light-hearted bet with her brother—an American citizen—over whether India would retaliate. She confidently said India would not attack Pakistan, while her brother disagreed. The wager? One hundred U.S. dollars. As days passed and no military action occurred, her foresight proved correct. This simple household bet reflected a broader public sentiment: that common sense and mature diplomacy would prevail over hollow threats and rash decisions.
What this incident exposed, beyond geopolitical calculations, was a significant shift in global norms regarding conflict and accountability. No longer can states hurl accusations and expect blind support. The world demands evidence, proportionality, and legal procedure. Pakistan’s transformation from a nation once blamed for regional instability to one actively advocating transparency and collaboration is a diplomatic victory. India’s inability to present proof or secure diplomatic endorsement is a cautionary tale in the perils of reactionary politics.
The road ahead remains fraught. Terrorism is a mutual enemy, and both nations must prioritize internal reforms, intelligence sharing, and regional cooperation. For India, this begins with introspection: evaluating its own intelligence failures, resisting the temptation to exploit tragedy for political mileage, and honoring its democratic commitments to truth and justice. For Pakistan, it means continuing to dismantle residual extremist networks and demonstrating—consistently—its resolve to combat terrorism in all its forms.
In the final analysis, the Pahalgam attack was not just a test of national security—it was a test of national character. Pakistan passed with dignity and poise. India, blinded by political posturing, faltered in the court of global opinion. It is now for the international community to hold all actors accountable—not just with rhetoric but through principled engagement that promotes peace, justice, and mutual respect. In a region brimming with nuclear weapons and historic mistrust, silence, patience, and truth—not sabre-rattling—are the most powerful weapons of all.