‘Perpetrators Must Be Brought to Justice’: SCO Condemns Pahalgam Terror Attack

🌏 Thematic Focus

GS2 / International Relations, GS3 / Internal Security

🪷 Intro Whisper

When terror struck Pahalgam, it was not only India’s grief but humanity’s wound. In Tianjin, even rivals joined the chorus: justice must prevail, and no double standards can survive.

🌸 Key Highlights

1. SCO Condemnation: Tianjin Declaration condemned April 22 Pahalgam attack.
2. Unanimous Stance: Even Pakistan & China signed, stressing “no double standards” in terrorism.
3. Operation Sindoor Backdrop: India alleged Pak–China collusion in weapons & intelligence.
4. PM Modi’s Message: “Assault on India’s soul… challenge to those who believe in humanity.”
5. SCO Reframed: Modi: Security, Connectivity, Opportunity.
6. Connectivity Clause: India backs Chabahar & INSTC; rejects CPEC violating sovereignty.
7. Global Concerns: Declaration also flagged Gaza crisis, Iran strikes, Middle East instability.
8. Strategic Autonomy: India balances SCO ties while facing US criticism of engaging China & Russia.

📖 Concept Explainer

• SCO’s Significance: For India, SCO is both a challenge and a stage. Despite sharp differences, it provides a platform where even adversaries must sign onto anti-terror language.
• Operation Sindoor Context: The attack at Pahalgam and India’s military retaliation exposed Pakistan’s use of Chinese weapons. Yet, in Tianjin, China had to sign a document condemning terror.
• Strategic Autonomy: India leverages SCO while still aligning with Quad/West — sending the message that it will engage everywhere without being bound by blocs.
• Connectivity Politics: Chabahar & INSTC promoted as inclusive, sovereignty-respecting corridors — India’s alternative to China’s BRI/CPEC.

📊 GS Paper Mapping

• GS2: SCO, India–China–Pakistan triangle, Connectivity initiatives (Chabahar, INSTC, CPEC).
• GS3: Internal Security, cross-border terrorism, counter-terror cooperation.
• Essay Links: Terrorism & Global Governance; “Security, Connectivity, Opportunity” as a foreign policy frame.

🌿 IAS Monk Whisper

Terror seeks division, but when even adversaries sign a pledge against it, the seed of hope is sown. India’s task is to turn words into action, and grief into resilience.

High Quality Mains Essay For Practice :

Word Limit 1000-1200

From Pahalgam to Tianjin: SCO’s Stand Against Terror and the Paradox of Contradictions

When the valley of Pahalgam was struck by terror on April 22, the violence tore not only through lives and landscapes but also through the fragile fabric of trust that knits South Asia. The attack was not just another entry in India’s long ledger of pain; it was an assault on the idea of humanity itself. That is why the condemnation of the attack by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) — including countries often accused of complicity — marks a moment of irony and importance.

At Tianjin, the SCO summit declaration stated unambiguously: the “perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of such attacks must be brought to justice.” In the lexicon of multilateral diplomacy, where language is carefully curated, this was strong phrasing. Even more striking was the presence of Pakistan and China — countries whose roles in Operation Sindoor, India’s military retaliation, were debated domestically — standing on the same page in condemning the attack.

I. Terrorism as Common Ground

The SCO has always walked a tightrope on terrorism. India has repeatedly flagged “double standards” in the global fight, pointing to how some member states shelter or support actors who sponsor cross-border terror. At Tianjin, however, the declaration’s language left little ambiguity: there can be no mercenary use of extremist groups, no justifications, and no exceptions.

For India, this was a diplomatic win. It aligned the forum with its core demand — that terrorism must be condemned universally, not selectively. For Pakistan and China, the declaration was a defensive act: signing onto the text despite their uneasy positions highlighted the pressure of multilateral consensus.

II. Operation Sindoor’s Shadow

The Operation Sindoor backdrop is crucial. Following the Pahalgam attack, India mounted a limited four-day confrontation in which Pakistani use of Chinese weaponry and intelligence support was alleged. The Opposition raised questions, citing collusion between Islamabad and Beijing.

In that context, China’s signature on a document condemning the Pahalgam attack was paradoxical but politically useful. It allowed India to claim that even those tacitly aiding its adversaries had to bow before the principle of justice.

III. Modi’s Reframing of SCO

Prime Minister Narendra Modi used the summit not only to call out terrorism but to redefine SCO. He coined it as an organisation of “Security, Connectivity, and Opportunity.” Each term carried a layered message.

• Security: Not just counter-terror but regional stability, sovereignty, and non-interference.
• Connectivity: India’s emphasis on Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), in contrast to the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). “Connectivity without sovereignty loses trust” was a direct rebuke to BRI projects.
• Opportunity: A positive framing that linked SCO’s future to youth, innovation, digital inclusion, and cultural exchange.

IV. The Convergence of Contradictions

What made Tianjin especially significant was not the unity but the paradox of its convergence. Around the table sat Iran and Turkey, both critical of Western interventions yet facing sanctions of their own; Pakistan, accused of harbouring terror, signing a condemnation of it; China, supplying weapons to Islamabad, endorsing India’s call for justice.

At the same summit, Modi, Putin, and Xi Jinping stood together for photographs — an uneasy tableau of leaders whose nations have divergent visions for Asia. The backdrop was further complicated by Donald Trump’s tariff wars, which had unsettled India’s economy and provoked resentment across Asia. Against this turbulence, the SCO became a theatre where contradictions were papered over in the language of consensus.

This paradox is both its weakness and its strength: SCO allows unlikely actors to converge, if only momentarily, on shared rhetoric, even while their actions betray competing realities.

V. The Declaration Beyond Terrorism

The Tianjin declaration extended beyond Pahalgam. It condemned the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, called for a ceasefire, and criticised US–Israel strikes on Iran that targeted civilian infrastructure. For many, this reflected SCO’s role as a counter-narrative to Western dominance — but it also highlighted the contradictions of member states that themselves pursue assertive strategies at home.

India’s alignment with such statements reflects its tradition of hedging — engaging with non-Western forums without abandoning its ties with the West.

VI. Connectivity and Sovereignty

Perhaps the most lasting element of Modi’s speech was his connectivity doctrine. By foregrounding Chabahar and INSTC, India offered a practical alternative to China’s BRI. The emphasis on sovereignty underscored India’s opposition to CPEC. This connectivity politics is India’s way of positioning itself as a responsible stakeholder in contrast to coercive or extractive models.

VII. Strategic Autonomy Amid Global Flux

The Tianjin summit revealed the essence of India’s foreign policy: strategic autonomy in a fragmented world. To some observers, Modi’s handshake with Putin and chat with Xi may seem at odds with India’s Quad commitments. To others, it was a demonstration that India will not be locked into rigid alliances. It will speak to all, partner with some, and oppose where necessary — but always on its own terms.

This is precisely what unsettles Washington. Trump’s tariffs on India, justified under “economic nationalism,” have inadvertently pushed India closer to alternative forums. Yet India’s message remains clear: it will not trade sovereignty for survival, nor accept coercion from any camp.

VIII. The Double Standards Debate

India has long argued that terrorism cannot be tackled with double standards — condemned when it hurts, excused when it helps. At Tianjin, by getting even reluctant members to sign onto a condemnation, India narrowed the space for duplicity.

Yet the contradiction lingers: can Pakistan, accused of collusion in Operation Sindoor, truly uphold this pledge? Can China, supplier of weapons across disputed borders, meaningfully back “no double standards”? The irony is sharp, but so is the symbolism: once signed, words can become benchmarks, and benchmarks can become leverage.

IX. Between Norms and Realities

The SCO summit is thus less about immediate action than about norm-setting. Its contradictions — Iran demanding sovereignty while facing unrest at home, Pakistan condemning terror while sheltering groups, China invoking non-interference while expanding influence — mirror the contradictions of our world. But by standing on the same page, however briefly, they affirm a fragile norm: that terror must be condemned, and sovereignty respected.

X. Conclusion: India’s Voice in the Chorus

From Pahalgam’s grief to Tianjin’s declaration, India’s voice echoed loudest. Modi’s framing of SCO as “Security, Connectivity, Opportunity” captured both the urgency of countering terror and the possibility of shaping cooperation. The paradox of contradictions did not weaken India’s message; it amplified it.

Even in a hall of uneasy partners, India could speak of humanity, sovereignty, and justice. The resonance may be imperfect, but it matters. For in multilateral diplomacy, words today become pressure tomorrow.

🌿 IAS Monk Whisper

When contradictions converge, truth flickers in the cracks. In Tianjin, adversaries who arm each other still signed a pledge for justice. It may be fragile, it may be flawed — but even in paradox, humanity found a voice.

✅ Word Count: ~1230

Target IAS-26: Daily MCQs :

📌 Prelims Practice MCQs

Topic: