'Countries fighting terrorism, radicalism quick to identify with India over Pahalgam'

THE PAHALGAM TERRORIST attack has highlighted the cleavages in the Middle East on terrorism. In recent years, almost all major countries in the region have been victims of terrorism. While most responded quickly to the tragedy, others took time or made perfunctory statements. Their response underscores not only their proximity to Pakistan, but also a selective application of their counter-terrorism doctrine.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the first to call Prime Minister Narendra Modi and condemn the attack, and, as the ministry of external affairs disclosed, Modi “shared the barbaric nature of the cross-border terrorist attack and reiterated India’s firm resolve to bring the perpetrators and their supporters to justice”. This was followed by the meeting between the External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Israeli Ambassador Reuven Azar. This quick response is reminiscent of Modi’s reaction to the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led terror attack, in which over a thousand Israelis were killed.

Likewise, Arab countries such as Jordan and Egypt, which are at the receiving end of the violence, especially from Muslim Brotherhood elements, were quick to strongly condemn the Pahalgam attack. Only a few days earlier, King Abdullah of Jordan had banned the Muslim Brotherhood for engaging “in activities that could undermine stability and security” in the Hashemite kingdom. For long, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had expressed his disapproval of terrorism, and hence called Pahalgam a “heinous act”. Interestingly, in recent days, Abbas upped his ante against Hamas, which he denounced as “sons of dogs” and called on the group to disarm and hand over control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestine National Authority. Iraq, which is slowly limping back to normalcy after a decade-long civil war, also recognised the “heinous attack” and its impact upon “hundreds of innocent civilians”.

The reactions of three Middle Eastern countries are rather interesting. The Pahalgam attack curtailed the prime minister’s state visit to Saudi Arabia, and under the shadow of terrorism, the Indian leader met Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who “strongly condemned the ghastly terror attack in Pahalgam and offered deepest condolences on the innocent lives lost. The two leaders resolved to combat terrorism tooth and nail.”

While in Jeddah, Modi also met the secretary-general of the Muslim World League, Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa. The head of one of the largest NGOs that steers Saudi policies quickly condemned the attack and offered deepest condolences. Segregating the tourists along religious lines and killing only Hindus ran counter to the Saudi desire to eliminate religious radicalism and promote the moderate voice of Islam inside and outside the kingdom. Some media reports suggest that Saudi Arabia is engaged in back-channel diplomacy to reduce tensions.

The response of Iran is a bit complicated. On April 26, more than three days after the attack, President Masoud Pezeshkian called Modi and “strongly condemned” the attack and expressed his condolences. However, earlier, Foreign Minister Sayyid Abbas Araghchi jumped the gun and declared that Tehran “stands ready to use its good offices in Islamabad and New Delhi to forge greater understanding at this difficult time.” This suggestion runs counter to the traditional Indian position regarding third-party mediation on Kashmir, but reflects the hardline position of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who frequently flags Kashmir.

Jaishankar had made clear India’s position on external intervention in May 2023 when India assumed the presidency of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, in which Pakistan and Iran are members. “Victims of terrorism do not sit together with perpetrators of terrorism to discuss terrorism. Victims of terrorism defend themselves, counter acts of terrorism, they call it out, they delegitimise it, and that is exactly what is happening,” he said. This is valid more than two years later for the Pahalgam attack as well.

The reaction or non-reaction of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is equally interesting. When the Pahalgam attack was unfolding, Erdogan was hosting Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and the latter expressed his country’s “gratitude for Turkey’s unwavering support on the Kashmir issue”. Erdogan, who has been quick to respond to various international developments, was silent on Pahalgam, although the Turkish foreign ministry posted a condolence message. Nearly a week after the attack, Erdogan called for de-escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan. The Turkish government also refuted rumours that Turkey sent aircraft carrying weapons to Pakistan.

For over a decade, the Turkish president has been placing the Kurdish question within the terrorism framework and carrying out military campaigns not only within Türkiye, but also in the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria. At regular intervals, Erdogan has flagged the Kashmir issue at various forums, including the UN General Assembly, and has emerged as the principal supporter of Pakistan’s agenda.

Countries that are at the forefront of fighting terrorism and religious radicalism are quick to identify with Indian agony and unequivocally condemn the Pahalgam attack. However, countries that use radicalism as a foreign policy instrument or frame political issues within a terrorism framework opted for a milder position. The human suffering at Pahalgam enables India to identify its true and long-term friends.

―Professor P.R. Kumaraswamy teaches contemporary Middle East at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.