“If they are deep in Pakistan, we’ll go deep in Pakistan.”
These weren’t just defiant words from India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. They were a strategic signal — bold, unflinching, and directed not only at Pakistan but squarely at Western capitals.
Currently on a diplomatic tour across Europe, Jaishankar delivered a series of pointed remarks that are now making global headlines. In a high-impact interview, he laid bare India’s position on terrorism, Western double standards, and the evolving tone in India–U.S. relations, especially in the wake of Operation Sindoor.
Let’s unpack this.
To revisit the backdrop: On May 7, India executed a precise cross-border strike targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-administered territory. This operation — dubbed Operation Sindoor — was a direct response to the deadly Pahalgam terror attack in April. Its message was unmistakable: India’s tolerance for cross-border terrorism has ended.
But what followed was equally telling. A perceptible frost crept into the tone of Washington’s diplomatic engagement. The United States issued familiar calls for “restraint,” and it became evident that India’s muscular self-defense posture had unsettled some Western observers.
In response, India conveyed its stance with clarity: we do not seek validation when defending our citizens.
Speaking in Europe, Jaishankar was unambiguously firm. “If they are deep in Pakistan, we will go deep in Pakistan,” he said. He followed it up with a piercing question to the global community: “Why did Osama bin Laden feel safe in Pakistan?”
This wasn’t rhetorical. It was a stark reminder of the West’s enduring blind spot — the permissive attitude toward Pakistan’s role as a haven for global terror networks. For decades, India has raised these concerns, only to watch much of the West sidestep them in favor of geopolitical convenience.
Jaishankar didn’t stop there. He issued a subtle but stern warning to Europe: Do not place the aggressor and the victim on the same moral plane. That isn’t neutrality. It’s complicity.
Indeed, in a world rapidly shifting toward multipolarity, India is asserting itself not just as a regional power but as a principled global actor — one unwilling to accept old frameworks that no longer reflect 21st-century realities.
In his meetings with European leaders, Jaishankar urged a rethinking of strategic assumptions. He reminded them that the world is no longer unipolar or bipolar; it’s multipolar — and India is one of the emerging centers of gravity.
He emphasized India’s balanced approach to global conflicts — for instance, its refusal to pick sides in the Russia-Ukraine war, not out of indecision but from a principled belief that dialogue, not alignment, is the way forward.
Trade also featured prominently in his agenda. Jaishankar called for momentum on the stalled India–EU free trade agreement and expressed concern over Europe’s new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), a tariff that could disproportionately affect developing nations. The message was clear: India seeks partnership, but not on unequal terms.
And what about the U.S.?
As speculation grows over India’s preference between Biden and Trump — especially with elections looming — Jaishankar offered a steady response: “Our diplomacy is driven by national interest, not personalities.”
That’s a signal of mature statecraft. While India–U.S. trade negotiations continue, with hopes of a breakthrough before the July 9 tariff deadline, the warmth has cooled. India is no longer starry-eyed. It will collaborate — but not concede.
Post-Operation Sindoor, and in the wake of Jaishankar’s unfiltered diplomacy, a new India is emerging: assertive, sovereign, and unapologetically strategic.
To Washington, Brussels, and Islamabad alike, the message is now crystal clear: India will not outsource its security. And it will not accept lectures from those who once looked the other way.
The world is watching. A recalibrated foreign policy doctrine is taking shape — not one of defiance, but of dignity.
Divya Panchal is a trainee journalist at Cult Current. The views expressed in the article
are her own and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of Cult Current