Foreign Policy in Crisis? Rahul Gandhi Slams Modi Government Over Pakistan Mediation

Rahul Gandhi's continued offensive on the Modi government over foreign policy has once again stirred a heated national debate, this time over the fallout of "Operation Sindoor" and India's handling of its relationship with Pakistan. The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha posed a direct and pointed question to External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar: why has India been hyphenated with Pakistan on the international stage, and who invited US President Donald Trump to mediate between the two neighbours?

Rahul Gandhi has argued that India's foreign policy has reached a breaking point, evident from recent events in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent Indian precision strikes on Pakistan-based terror infrastructure under Operation Sindoor. The attacks, which began on May 7, were a response to the April 22 assault in Pahalgam, where 26 Indian citizens were killed. India’s counter-strikes sparked retaliatory action from Pakistan, leading to a tense military confrontation that lasted four days.

Eventually, on May 10, a ceasefire was announced, and Donald Trump claimed that the US had "mediated" the truce.

This public claim by the former US President triggered a political storm in India. For a country that has always maintained a no-mediation policy on bilateral issues with Pakistan, Trump’s announcement of playing a peace broker was more than a diplomatic embarrassment. It challenged India's foundational stance on sovereignty and autonomy in managing its neighbourhood affairs. Rahul Gandhi, seizing the moment, questioned why India had allowed itself to be clubbed with Pakistan diplomatically—something successive Indian governments, irrespective of party affiliations, had actively resisted.

Gandhi posted a video clip of Jaishankar’s interview with the Dutch broadcaster NOS, where the minister was seen addressing the Pahalgam incident and the military exchanges. This clip became the basis for Gandhi’s stinging critique. He asked why not a single international power stood by India in condemning Pakistan, despite the high civilian toll and clear intelligence on Pakistan-backed terror outfits operating across the border. For a country aspiring to be a major global player, the silence of international allies during a terror crisis was deeply troubling and, according to Gandhi, indicative of a failed foreign policy.

The Opposition's criticism did not stop at questions. They escalated to direct attacks on Jaishankar’s credibility and patriotism. Congress leaders coined the epithet “Jaichand Jaishankar,” invoking the legendary Rajput king Jaichand who, according to folklore, sided with invaders against Prithviraj Chauhan. This loaded analogy was used to question Jaishankar's loyalty and strategic competence. AICC functionary Gaurav Pandhi went as far as to demand his resignation, calling him a national liability and suggesting an independent inquiry into the Ministry of External Affairs’ role in the events surrounding Operation Sindoor.

The controversy deepened when it was alleged that Indian authorities had forewarned Pakistan about certain aspects of Operation Sindoor, presumably under US pressure or diplomatic backchanneling. These claims, unverified but widely circulated, gave fuel to the Opposition’s charge that the government had compromised national security for international appeasement. Rahul Gandhi asked bluntly: why did Modi’s government believe Pakistan's statements on terrorism? And why did it bow to the US by halting hostilities prematurely?

The narrative pushed by the BJP has been markedly different. The ruling party has accused Rahul Gandhi of demoralizing the armed forces and playing into the hands of India’s enemies. The BJP has called him a "modern age Mir Jafar," another historical figure reviled for betrayal. Social media became a battleground where memes and allegations were exchanged, each side accusing the other of endangering national interest. But beyond the mudslinging lies a deeper question—has India lost its strategic clarity in dealing with Pakistan and its standing with major global powers?

Experts are divided on the extent of foreign policy mismanagement. While some argue that Jaishankar’s firm rebuttals to Trump's claims were too little, too late, others maintain that the Indian foreign service worked diligently to restore the country’s sovereign narrative. Nonetheless, the delay in officially denying Trump’s mediation claim damaged India's diplomatic posture. For days, India remained publicly silent, allowing international media and foreign governments to believe that a third-party intervention had occurred. When the Ministry of External Affairs finally issued a denial, the damage had been done. It took another few rounds of interviews and statements from Jaishankar to blunt Trump’s narrative, and even then, observers felt the response lacked conviction and immediacy.

The episode also exposes the fragile nature of India's strategic autonomy in a global system still influenced by the superpowers' preferences. Despite a decade of projecting itself as a "Vishwaguru" or world leader under Modi, the inability to block Trump’s interventionist posturing or rally global condemnation against Pakistan raises questions about the real effectiveness of Indian diplomacy. Was India truly isolated on this issue? And if so, why?

Rahul Gandhi's broader argument is that the government’s over-centralized foreign policy, where key decisions are influenced by optics rather than institutional expertise, has eroded India's global standing. He claims that while the Prime Minister is seen delivering strong speeches domestically, his government fails to defend India’s interests in international corridors. According to him, the illusion of strength is maintained only in front of cameras, while the substance of policy is alarmingly hollow.

The ceasefire brokered on May 10 may have brought temporary calm, but the political storm it unleashed in India continues. The growing perception that New Delhi acted under external pressure, especially American influence, has not gone down well with many strategic thinkers. Trump’s repeated claims of playing peacemaker have undermined India’s diplomatic tradition of non-alignment and bilateralism in dealing with Pakistan. And Jaishankar’s eventual denials, although forceful, came after a vacuum of silence that allowed speculation and political ammunition to fill the air.

Ultimately, the Operation Sindoor fallout is not just about cross-border skirmishes or even Trump’s claims. It is a moment of reckoning for India’s foreign policy framework—how much independence does India really have in strategic decision-making, and how effectively does it communicate its positions to the world? Rahul Gandhi’s questions, provocative though they may be, strike at the heart of these unresolved tensions. They challenge not only the government’s tactical decisions but also its strategic credibility on the global stage. Whether the government chooses to treat them as political rhetoric or legitimate concerns may well shape the future contours of India's diplomacy.