The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Needs Transparency

The recent failure of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to issue a joint communique after its meeting in China is a collective failure, not one that can be pinned on a single country. Since the SCO functions on the principle of consensus, the inability to arrive at one indicates that multiple member states were either unwilling or unable to agree on common language. Defence minister Rajnath Singh has blamed “one particular country”—clearly referring to Pakistan—for blocking consensus. External affairs minister S. Jaishankar echoed this, stating that Pakistan objected to the inclusion of the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, in which 26 tourists were killed. If this is true, it raises the critical question: How did Pakistan enjoy what amounts to veto power in a multilateral platform that prides itself on cooperation and security?

More perplexing is the fact that the communique included reference to a terrorist incident in Balochistan. Why did India not object to that with the same force? At the very least, for reasons of parity, India should have insisted that either both events be mentioned or neither. Diplomatic parity is not a matter of pride alone—it’s also one of principle and national interest. Ignoring it risks emboldening those who use terrorism as statecraft. That India was unable to persuade its SCO partners, including strategic friends like Russia and Iran, to support the inclusion of the Pahalgam incident is disappointing. It indicates a failure in diplomatic outreach, particularly when India has long advocated a zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism. If even its close allies were not moved to support its position, it signals a need for introspection and better coordination ahead of such summits. Clearly, goodwill and old friendships are not enough in the cut-throat world of geopolitics.

Video: Elephant Dung Served With Pollen, Herbal Perfume; Shanghai Restaurant’s Bizarre Dessert Goes Viral

Adding to the confusion are the contradictory statements from Indian officials, which have only muddied the waters. With so many conflicting accounts, public curiosity is justified. Citizens, analysts, and students of international relations alike have every right to ask: What exactly did India propose? Who objected? How did the other members react to Pakistan’s reported insistence? And who all insisted on the mention of Balochistan? There are also reports suggesting that Rajnath Singh took a firm stand, arguing that the Pahalgam attack was a clear act of cross-border terrorism, planned and executed from Pakistani soil. This has been the pattern of many such incidents in Jammu and Kashmir, and India was well within its rights to raise it forcefully. What the episode underlines is the urgent need for a clear national briefing. India’s foreign policy must not operate in a fog of ambiguity. The government owes it to the public and the diplomatic community to explain what went wrong—and how it plans to prevent a repeat. Transparency builds trust, and trust strengthens diplomacy.