# *Detailed SUMMARY of the article "Diplomatic setback" by Maleeha Lodhi, Published in Dawn on June 16th, 2025:* The article analyzes *India's diplomatic setback* following the recent *India-Pakistan conflict* and its aftermath, highlighting *five key aspects* where *New Delhi* failed internationally. First, *India* found no support except from *Israel* for launching *military action* against *Pakistan* after the *Pahalgam terrorist incident*. Second, the international community *disapproved* of *India's decision* to *suspend the Indus Waters Treaty*. Third, the *re-hyphenation* of both countries occurred, particularly evident in *President Donald Trump's statements*, which *India* had long opposed. Fourth, *Trump* repeatedly claimed credit for securing a *ceasefire* and offered to *mediate on Kashmir*, causing *India's ire*. Fifth, international focus shifted from *terrorism* to the *nuclear flashpoint* danger. *Indian media* widely acknowledged this *diplomatic isolation*, with *The Wire* describing it as *"India's disastrous isolation"* and noting that *Modi's domestic rhetoric* masked *diminished diplomatic influence*. *Brahma Chellaney* criticized *India's sluggish response* in setting the global narrative, costing *diplomatic capital*. *India's hubristic assumption* that its global influence would automatically translate into *diplomatic advantage* proved a *strategic miscalculation*. The *Modi government's* reliance on *false information*, *fake news*, and *unfounded claims* seriously damaged its *international credibility*. *Seven multiparty delegations* were dispatched to scores of countries, acknowledging that things hadn't gone *India's way internationally*. Even *Western media*, usually sympathetic to *India*, was skeptical of *India's assertions*. *The Washington Post* reported on *officially orchestrated falsehoods* and *misinformation* in *Indian newsrooms*. *Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar's* arrogant responses to international partners, including telling the *EU* that *India* wanted *"partners not preachers"* and rebuking the *British foreign secretary*, further damaged relations. *India's* attempt to block *IMF funding* for *Pakistan* failed and made *New Delhi* look foolish. The article emphasizes that *India* misassessed international reality, noting there's no appetite for *military confrontation* between *nuclear neighbors*. *Pakistan's responsible restraint* and *India's missteps* handed *Islamabad* a *decided diplomatic advantage*, representing a *role reversal* from past conflicts. However, the author warns against *complacency*, urging *Pakistan* to conduct a *comprehensive foreign policy review* to translate this *transient advantage* into *longer-term gains*. The article concludes that *Pakistan* must *capitalize* on this *opportunity* by *resetting foreign policy goals* and evolving strategies to match the *changed international scenario*, particularly as *Pakistan-China strategic relations* have been *fortified*. # *Easy/Short SUMMARY*: *India* faced a major *diplomatic setback* in the recent *India-Pakistan conflict*, with *five key failures*: no international support for *military action*, *disapproval* of *IWT suspension*, *re-hyphenation* by *Trump*, *Kashmir mediation offers*, and focus shifting to *nuclear danger*. *Indian media* acknowledged *"disastrous isolation"* and *diminished influence*. *Modi government's* *false claims* and *fake news* damaged *credibility*. *Pakistan's restraint* vs *India's missteps* gave *Islamabad* a *diplomatic advantage*. *Pakistan* must now conduct *foreign policy review* to convert *transient gains* into *long-term benefits*. # *SOLUTIONS of The Problem*: ## *1. Comprehensive Foreign Policy Review* Conduct a *wide-ranging evaluation* of *international landscape* and *Pakistan's position* globally. ## *2. Reset Foreign Policy Goals* *Redefine objectives* to match *changed international scenario* and *geopolitical shifts*. ## *3. Capitalize on Diplomatic Gains* *Leverage current advantage* through *strategic planning* and *imaginative diplomacy*. ## *4. Strengthen Pakistan-China Relations* *Further fortify* the *strategic partnership* with *China* for *regional balance*. ## *5. Maintain Responsible Approach* Continue *measured responses* and *restraint* that earned *international respect*. ## *6. Counter Indian Narratives* Develop *proactive communication strategies* to *challenge false claims* and *misinformation*. ## *7. Engage International Partners* *Strengthen ties* with *US*, *EU*, and other *key stakeholders* through *consistent diplomacy*. ## *8. Utilize Multilateral Forums* *Maximize participation* in *UN committees* and *international organizations* for *legitimacy*. ## *9. Address Nuclear Concerns* *Emphasize responsible* *nuclear posture* and *commitment* to *regional stability*. ## *10. Build Long-term Strategy* Create *sustainable diplomatic approach* before *current advantages* begin to *fade*. # *IMPORTANT Facts and Figures Given in the article*: - *India* dispatched *seven multiparty delegations* to scores of countries after the conflict. - Only *Israel* supported *India's military action* against *Pakistan*. - *President Trump* repeatedly claimed credit for securing the *ceasefire*. - *Pakistan* was appointed to key *UN counterterrorism committees*. - The conflict involved the *Pahalgam terrorist incident*. - *India* suspended the *Indus Waters Treaty* during the crisis. - *Modi government* spread *false information* and *fake news* during the conflict. # *IMPORTANT Facts and Figures out of the article*: - *India-Pakistan* have fought *four wars* since *1947* (*Historical record*). - *Pakistan* spends *3.6%* of *GDP* on defense vs *India's 2.4%* (*SIPRI*, 2024). - *Both countries* possess *160+* nuclear warheads each (*Federation of American Scientists*, 2024). - *Kashmir dispute* involves *12 million* people in *disputed territory* (*UN data*, 2024). - *Indus Waters Treaty* governs *270 million* people's *water rights* (*World Bank*, 2024). - *China-Pakistan Economic Corridor* worth *$62 billion* (*CPEC Authority*, 2024). # *MCQs from the Article*: ### 1. *How many aspects of diplomatic setback did India face according to the article?* A. Three B. Four *C. Five* D. Six ### 2. *Which country supported India's military action against Pakistan?* A. United States *B. Israel* C. United Kingdom D. France ### 3. *Who claimed credit for securing the ceasefire?* A. Modi B. UN Secretary General *C. Donald Trump* D. Chinese President ### 4. *What did Foreign Minister Jaishankar say India wanted instead of preachers?* A. Allies *B. Partners* C. Friends D. Supporters ### 5. *How many multiparty delegations did India dispatch after the conflict?* A. Five B. Six *C. Seven* D. Eight # *VOCABULARY*: 1. *Setback* (ناکامی) – A reversal or defeat in progress 2. *Aftermath* (نتائج) – The consequences following an event 3. *Elicited* (حاصل کیا) – Drew out or obtained 4. *Re-hyphenation* (دوبارہ ملانا) – Linking countries together again 5. *Ire* (غضب) – Anger or wrath 6. *Morphing* (تبدیل ہونا) – Changing form or character 7. *Flashpoint* (نکتہ انفجار) – A place of potential violent conflict 8. *Hubristic* (تکبر سے بھرا) – Showing excessive pride or arrogance 9. *Recklessly* (لاپرواہی سے) – Without thinking of consequences 10. *Miscalculation* (غلط حساب) – Wrong assessment or judgment 11. *Stunning* (حیران کن) – Extremely impressive or surprising 12. *Unfounded* (بے بنیاد) – Having no foundation in fact 13. *Dented* (نقصان پہنچایا) – Damaged or weakened 14. *Orchestrated* (منظم کیا گیا) – Carefully organized or arranged 15. *Misinformation* (غلط معلومات) – False or inaccurate information 16. *Transactional* (لین دین پر مبنی) – Based on exchange of benefits 17. *Reprimand* (سرزنش) – Sharp criticism or rebuke 18. *Disingenuous* (بے ایمان) – Not candid or sincere 19. *Commission* (کمیشن) – Act of doing something 20. *Omission* (کوتاہی) – Failure to do something 📢 *Attention Please!* We appreciate your commitment to acquiring knowledge through our summaries. Please be reminded not to remove the attribution label affixed to this article. It is crucial to acknowledge the source and the effort invested in creating this summary. We discourage any unauthorized distribution without proper credit. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. 🔍 ⚡ *Explore More Summaries, Solutions, and Vocabulary Meanings* 💡 Join our WhatsApp Channel for timely and comprehensive summaries of the latest articles, along with well-crafted solutions and helpful vocabulary meanings. Click the link below to join now 🔗 [Dawn Article Summaries](https://cssmcqs.com/dawn-editorials-articles-summary-for-students-pdf-download/) *WhatsApp Channel Link*: [https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va7tT3o35fLnJeFbpS2y](https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va7tT3o35fLnJeFbpS2y) --- *www.dawn.com* *Diplomatic setback* *Maleeha Lodhi* *7 - 9 minutes* THERE are at least five aspects of the stance adopted by the international community in the recent India-Pakistan conflict and its aftermath which represented a diplomatic setback for New Delhi. One, New Delhi found no takers, except perhaps Israel, for launching military action against Pakistan as a response to the Pahalgam terrorist incident. Two, it elicited international disapproval rather than support for its decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. Three, re-hyphenation of the two countries that India long opposed, was evidenced most significantly in President Donald Trump's statements, as also by others. Four, Trump made repeated claims, to India's ire, that he secured a ceasefire to end the crisis and also offered to mediate on Kashmir. And five, international focus shifted quickly from terrorism to the danger of the crisis morphing into a nuclear flashpoint. The diplomatic setback faced by India was widely commented upon in the country's media. A columnist wrote in The Wire about "India's disastrous isolation in the world". According to The Wire's own analysis, "Modi's domestic rhetoric masked a reality of India's diminished diplomatic influence and strategic setbacks". "All indicators," it wrote, "suggest that the Modi government's foreign policy failed to convert India's military gains into sustained diplomatic advantage over Pakistan." Brahma Chellaney told India Today that New Delhi lost the narrative, adding "India's sluggish response time [in setting the global narrative] had cost it diplomatic capital". Several papers saw India's diplomacy failing to convince the world about its case against Pakistan. Others spoke about "diplomatic distancing by neighbours" with India "isolated in the region". Pakistan's appointment to key UN counterterrorism committees was also seen as leaving "many red faces in New Delhi", according to The Hindu and other newspapers. India's hubristic assumption that its influence in the world would automatically translate into diplomatic advantage irrespective of how recklessly it behaved by initiating a military conflict turned out to be a strategic miscalculation. A stunning own goal was the false information and fake news it spread and its unfounded claims that seriously dented its international credibility — as indeed its credibility at home. The Modi government's efforts to control the narrative by relying on untruths and flights from reality only made matters worse. Constant denials that the US had helped end the conflict further damaged its credibility. What must have been particularly annoying for New Delhi was to hear Trump's repeated praise for Pakistan's leadership and declaring he had good relations with both countries. That the Modi government had to dispatch seven multiparty delegations to scores of countries to make India's case was acknowledgment that things had not gone India's way at the international level. Even Western media coverage, usually sympathetic to India, was sceptical about India's assertions and critical of its actions. The Washington Post reported on how officially orchestrated "falsehoods filled the airwaves" and "misinformation overtook Indian newsrooms" during the conflict. For their part, several Indian media outlets complained of Western media bias against their country. Pakistan's restraint and a series of Indian missteps gave Islamabad a decided diplomatic advantage. In fact, New Delhi seemed to have set itself unrealistic foreign policy goals and made miscalculations that entailed significant diplomatic costs. Its expectation of unconditional loyalty from its friends and allies, especially the US, was unrealistic if not naïve, and that too from an administration committed to a transactional policy that prioritised America's interests over all else. In what was seen as a reprimand to the European Union, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar said India "wanted partners not preachers" in response to the EU's call for restraint during the crisis. Instead of eliciting Europe's support, he arrogantly advised it to adjust to new geostrategic realities. He also rebuked the British foreign secretary for equating India and Pakistan. New Delhi's disingenuous response to Trump taking credit for the ceasefire further undermined its position. India's effort to block the IMF executive board's approval of funding for Pakistan was a failure foretold and only made New Delhi look foolish. By its own acts of commission and omission, the Modi government found itself on the diplomatic backfoot. It mis-assessed the reality that there is no international appetite for a military confrontation between two nuclear neighbours that could lead to uncontrolled escalation. And also, borrowing from the Israeli playbook and applying it to South Asia would not work in a nuclearised environment. The diplomatic outreach undertaken by its delegations fared no better. They failed to shift the needle and their clumsy approach, riddled with contradictions, did little to change international perceptions. For that reason, their conduct attracted criticism and even ridicule at home. A combination of Pakistan's responsible exercise of restraint and a series of Indian missteps — and the contrast between the two — handed Islamabad a decided diplomatic advantage. This represented quite a role reversal, as often in the past India had dominated the narrative on the international stage, reinforced, of course, by its strategic and economic importance, with Pakistan placed on the defensive. Not so this time. India's military overreach and strategic miscalculations left it struggling to achieve its foreign policy aims. Pakistan's measured but effective military riposte to Indian aggression and its nimble diplomatic moves enabled the country to secure an advantage over India. That, however, is no reason to be complacent or assume Islamabad can maintain the diplomatic upper hand. Translating a transient advantage into a longer-term gain will require careful planning and an imaginative strategy. Its starting point — and I have argued this before — must be a wide-ranging review of foreign policy. If new diplomatic opportunities have arisen from the crisis with India, these can only be seized by a well-thought-out strategy crafted after a comprehensive evaluation of the international landscape. Such a review is in any case long overdue given changing global power dynamics and geopolitical shifts. Pakistan needs to capitalise on this moment of opportunity by resetting its foreign policy goals and evolving a strategy to match a changed international scenario — where India will pose imposing challenges on multiple fronts, but also one in which Pakistan-China strategic relations have been further fortified. It should strive to do that before the diplomatic gains reaped from its adversary's mistakes begin to fade. The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN. Published in Dawn, June 16th, 2025