Turkiye, China पाकिस्तानच्या बाजूने; Russia सारखे मित्र असूनही भारताच्या बाजूने कुणी उभं का नाही ?

Summary

The video discusses the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan post-operation Sindoor, shedding light on the role of various countries in supporting either side. While Pakistan received backing from Turkey, Azerbaijan, China, and Saudi Arabia, India faced limited direct support from other nations. The video explores the diplomatic dynamics, highlighting how the conflict didn't see any third-party intervention on India’s side and the global stance on terrorism. It also addresses India's struggle with global media perception, its challenges in setting a narrative, and the role of national interests in shaping international relations.

Takeaways

• 😀 India and Pakistan's tension post-Operation Sindoor is easing, with discussions scheduled between both nations' DGMO, but India's stance on the Sindhu water treaty remains suspended.
• 😀 Pakistan continues to be supported by nations like Turkey, Azerbaijan, China, and Saudi Arabia due to shared geopolitical interests, despite its role in fostering terrorism.
• 😀 Despite these supports, no country openly backed India during the conflict, highlighting the limits of India's international influence during the crisis.
• 😀 India’s consistent rejection of third-party mediation in the conflict stems from its strong stance on maintaining sovereignty and national interests.
• 😀 Key international players like the US, Russia, and the EU expressed support for India on terrorism but remained neutral or called for peace regarding the broader conflict.
• 😀 India’s diplomatic image as a rising global power was challenged by the lack of explicit support from global powers, revealing the limits of its global influence.
• 😀 The failure to set a consistent and effective diplomatic narrative on the global stage has been a notable shortcoming for India in this conflict.
• 😀 Despite military success, India struggled to set an international narrative against Pakistan, which has been effective in using victimhood as a strategic tool on the global stage.
• 😀 Countries like the US and European nations have emphasized regional stability over picking sides in the India-Pakistan conflict, affecting India's diplomatic standing.
• 😀 The role of media diplomacy and information warfare has been highlighted, with India’s media failing to effectively counter Pakistan's narrative, weakening its global credibility.

Q & A

Why did no country openly support India during the conflict with Pakistan?

Despite India's significant military victory, no country openly supported India during the conflict due to geopolitical interests, regional stability concerns, and India's stance on not allowing third-party mediation. Additionally, many countries prioritize their own strategic interests over ideological alignment.

What role did Turkey play in supporting Pakistan during the conflict?

Turkey supported Pakistan due to their shared Islamic identity and common geopolitical interests. Turkey's support included providing drones, which boosted Pakistan's confidence in the conflict.

What was Azerbaijan's stance during the conflict with India and Pakistan?

Azerbaijan openly supported Pakistan following India's Operation Sindoor. This led to calls for boycotting Azerbaijani products and services in India due to its open backing of Pakistan.

Why did China support Pakistan during the conflict?

China supported Pakistan largely because of their long-standing economic and strategic ties, particularly through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Additionally, China had provided significant financial aid to Pakistan, including a loan of $2 billion in March.

How did Saudi Arabia's stance affect Pakistan and India during the conflict?

Saudi Arabia did not openly support Pakistan but has historically aligned with Pakistan on various issues, especially regarding India. Saudi Arabia refrained from imposing sanctions on Pakistan, avoiding a direct confrontation with India.

What was India's approach to international mediation during the conflict?

India consistently opposed third-party mediation in the conflict with Pakistan, prioritizing its sovereignty and self-determination. India maintained a policy of direct military communication and insisted on resolving the issue without external interference.

Why did major countries like the US and Russia avoid taking sides in the conflict?

The United States and Russia focused on promoting regional stability and reducing tensions, rather than taking sides. Both countries acknowledged India's fight against terrorism but chose not to involve themselves directly in the military conflict due to broader geopolitical considerations.

What is the significance of the 'victim card' used by Pakistan during the conflict?

Pakistan frequently portrayed itself as a victim, particularly in the aftermath of aggressive actions by India, such as the Pulwama and Balakot strikes. This narrative aimed to garner international sympathy and support, despite evidence of Pakistan's involvement in promoting terrorism.

How did the global media cover the India-Pakistan conflict, and why was it a challenge for India?

Global media coverage was critical of India, with outlets portraying India’s actions as escalatory. The Indian media, on the other hand, often emphasized India's military successes, which led to a perception of biased reporting. India's lack of a strong global media presence to counter Pakistan's narrative made it difficult for India to influence the international discourse effectively.

What lessons can India learn from this conflict in terms of international diplomacy?

India can learn the importance of strategic media diplomacy and the need to build stronger international narratives. Despite military success, India faced challenges in setting a diplomatic narrative due to its limited media influence globally. Strengthening diplomatic channels and maintaining consistent messaging will be crucial for India's future international relations.