Last week at the SCO Defence Ministers’ meeting in Kyrgyzstan, Rajnath Singh strongly condemned state-sponsored cross-border terrorism, calling it the most serious threat to the global order. He urged a united, zero-tolerance approach, asserting that “terror epicentres” are no longer beyond the reach of consequences - a remark referencing India’s response to the Pahalgam attack. But the global landscape has shifted. The so-called “war on terror” is no longer the central axis of international politics. Today, conflicts are increasingly driven by control over critical resources, strategic trade corridors, and evolving geopolitical alliances. Raising domestically charged rhetoric in a forum where most member states are closely aligned with China and Russia and, by extension, maintain ties with Pakistan, comes across as out of step with the forum’s strategic realities. It is less of a principled diplomacy and more like political signaling. At a time when credibility is already under strain, whether due to positions on Israel, perceived silence on Iran, or reluctance to engage with initiatives like de-dollarisation within BRICS - who would see value in deeper alignment under these circumstances? Why would any member nation care about a bilateral issue?
