A joint statement from the Quad nations condemned the recent Pahalgam terror attack, but stopped short of naming Pakistan or even affirming the attack happened on Indian soil—prompting unease in New Delhi’s strategic circles just as regional tensions threaten to heat up again.
India’s signature sits beside those of the United States, Japan, and Australia on the statement. But buried in the diplomacy of the language lies a decision that says more than it shows. There is no mention of Pakistan, no condemnation of cross-border terror, and not even a reference to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. For New Delhi, that silence is as loud as the gunfire that killed the pilgrims.
Language of Caution Amid Strategic Calculus
The attack in Pahalgam last weekend left at least nine pilgrims dead and more than 30 injured. While India squarely blames Pakistan-based militant groups, the joint Quad statement chose a vague, carefully worded condemnation of “the heinous terrorist attack in South Asia.”
That phrasing is deliberate. And it’s not new.
India’s officials are familiar with the balancing act their Quad partners often perform when it comes to Indo-Pak tensions. In private, they express solidarity. In public, it’s hedged in neutral tones and geographic euphemisms.
“This has become routine,” said a former Indian foreign secretary, requesting anonymity. “We are seeing a pattern of the West avoiding friction with Islamabad—even when it is clear where the violence comes from.”
One official with knowledge of the drafting process said that Japan and Australia in particular urged the removal of any phrasing that could be interpreted as taking sides on Kashmir or aggravating Islamabad.
India, for its part, still signed on.
The Geopolitical Math Behind the Statement
Why would India agree to a document that waters down the location and omits any hint of cross-border terror?
The answer lies in the broader strategic picture. With China expanding influence from the South China Sea to the Himalayas, India is acutely aware it needs its Quad partners—flawed statements and all.
“It’s not the statement we wanted,” said an official in India’s Ministry of External Affairs, “but walking away would’ve sent the wrong message to Beijing.”
That calculus was echoed by experts watching the Indo-Pacific strategy unfold.
“You have to pick your fights,” said Tanvi Madan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “India knows this statement isn’t ideal. But Delhi also knows that staying in the Quad tent gives it leverage it wouldn’t have outside it.”
So the compromise was made: a vague condemnation with a very clear silence on Pakistan.
A Quiet Shift in Quad Tone?
This isn’t the first time the Quad has chosen ambiguity. But the language has become even more neutral since the group ramped up its coordination after the 2020 Galwan clashes between Indian and Chinese troops.
Consider this progression:
-
2021 Quad Statement: Reaffirmed commitment to Indo-Pacific security, no direct mention of terror attacks in South Asia.
-
2022 Quad Foreign Ministers Statement: Mentioned terrorism but refrained from naming either state or non-state actors.
-
2023 Joint Leaders’ Declaration: Avoided any geographical specificity on security threats, sticking instead to “shared challenges.”
And now 2025’s post-Pahalgam language seems like a continuation of that careful tone management.
Here’s how the Quad language on terrorism evolved:
| Year | Language Used | Mention of Pakistan | Mention of Kashmir/India |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | “Counter-terrorism cooperation” | No | No |
| 2022 | “Condemn acts of terrorism in all forms” | No | No |
| 2023 | “Reaffirm commitment to a free, open, secure Indo-Pacific” | No | No |
| 2025 | “Condemn heinous terrorist attack in South Asia” | No | No |
That column of “No”s has started to worry Indian officials.
India’s Domestic Pressure Is Building
While New Delhi’s official position has remained measured, the political response back home has not.
Opposition parties seized on the Quad statement as proof of the Modi government’s “diplomatic submission,” with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi asking whether India’s sovereignty was being ignored for the sake of photo-ops.
“You can’t claim to be a global leader and then stay silent when your allies don’t acknowledge an attack on your soil,” Gandhi said during a press conference in Hyderabad.
Others criticized the Modi government for failing to push back harder against a watered-down response.
“This is about national dignity,” said Priyanka Chaturvedi of the Shiv Sena (UBT). “If we don’t even insist that our own territory be named, what message are we sending to Pakistan—or to our own people?”
There’s no official comment from the Prime Minister’s Office yet. But BJP insiders say the leadership is treating the issue with “strategic patience.”
Pakistan Avoids the Spotlight—Again
For Islamabad, this is all too familiar territory. Deny, deflect, and let the international statements soften with time.
Pakistan’s foreign ministry dismissed Indian accusations outright and welcomed the Quad’s “measured language” that avoided “baseless blame.”
Officials in Pakistan privately acknowledged relief that neither their country nor its proxies were named—allowing them to play both domestic victim and international actor without consequences.
It’s a pattern that’s been repeating for decades.
-
Pakistan avoids condemnation.
-
India fumes privately.
-
The world moves on to the next flashpoint.
The Bigger Fight Still Looms Large
While India is disappointed, few in South Block want to escalate tensions with the Quad partners over this single episode.
They know where the bigger battle lies: China.
The growing naval deployments by Beijing, the recent PLA infrastructure in Aksai Chin, and increased submarine sightings in the Indian Ocean all suggest a much broader contest ahead.
“In the bigger picture, Pahalgam is a painful wound—but China is the long-term cancer,” said a retired Indian general bluntly.
So India signs the Quad statement. Holds its tongue. And prepares for the next round of diplomacy.
