Power and anarchy have always formed the basis of international order in the practical world, where logic is rooted in pragmatism rather than ideals. In the classical tradition of realpolitik, states often pursue their interests through alliances, coercion and often using deprivation and marginalization. However, it remains the hardest to achieve in a globalized world. International arena has become connected more than ever in a digitized world of social media, where states like North Korea are unable to endure isolationism. Yet, in the strategically fragile South Asia, India engineered the strategy against Pakistan. The country openly adopted and claimed isolationist policy, threatening to diplomatically isolate and ultimately annihilate Pakistan. However, it remains puzzling whether almost two decades down the road, this policy sustained itself through time and challenges.
The peak of Global of War on Terror was a just yesterday. In 2008, India was struck with one of the most terrible terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Subsequently, Pakistan was fighting transnational terrorists in Swat. Yet, this one incident became the basis of allegations for cross-border terrorism against Pakistan, leading India to orchestrate a strategy to isolate the country diplomatically. Isolationism is not absolute. It offers a repertoire of instruments aimed at advancing a state’s interests against adversary, tilting the balance of power. For the time being India was able to sustain the policy. After Mumbai attacks, doors for dialogue between India and Pakistan closed. In absence of bilateral forums, avenues for engagements at multilateral forums withered amidst criticism and diplomatic paths became limited. During this time, India strategically positioned itself as an emerging global economy and IT hub. Simultaneously, it painted Pakistan, a victim of terrorism, as a terrorist breeding ground, acting on its two prong strategy.
India mobilized an international narrative campaign against terror networks that operated inside Pakistan, painting it as a safe haven for terrorism. New Delhi shifted its Pakistan centric foreign policy at internationalizing Pakistan’s inaction on Hafiz Saeed, alleged in Mumbai attacks. India adopted a sharper approach with Modi’s arrival in 2014, dialogues were linked to one-point agenda; curbing cross-border terrorism. This was realized after 2016 Pathankot and Uri attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, when India allegedly carried a surgical strike and staged a boycott of SAARC summit in Islamabad. By 2017–2018, India extensively lobbied at Financial Action Task Force (FATF), contributing to Pakistan’s grey-listing and later moving to black list the country.
The watershed moment came in 2019 with a terror attack on military convoy in Pulwama in Jammu and Kashmir. India revoked Pakistan’s Most Favoured Nation (MFN) trade status, suspended LoC trade and launched Balakot airstrikes deep inside Pakistani territory citing terror camps presence. Pakistan’s efforts remained internationally unrecognized building pressure on the country to release prisoner of war, Wing Commander Abhinandan. This incident strengthened India’s resolve and it abrogated Article 370 in Kashmir in same year. Pakistan made serious efforts to diplomatically engage friendly states on this issue, which remained in vain. Pakistan’s case against India’s constitutional amendment was disregarded as an internal matter, which reinforced that India successfully isolated Pakistan.
Several factors combined to make isolationism attractive to Indian decision-makers. The first was a homegrown anti-Pakistan political narrative, which resonated with core voters. Second factor was India’s changing place in the world as a fastest-growing economies and a major IT hub. Indian leaders had confidence that they could shape regional narratives and marginalize Pakistan without much pushback. Thirdly, global security environment appeared favorable, casting Pakistan as a state sponsoring terrorism fitted neatly into Western discourses. In the beginning of 2025, India was able to repatriate the mastermind of Mumbai attacks, Tahawur Rana, with help of US President Donald Trump. Another diplomatic success for India ensuring Pakistan’s complete isolation.
However, soon the geopolitical architecture began shifting in favour of Pakistan. One sudden morning US President Trump announced an appreciation for Pakistan’s assistance in apprehension and repatriation of Sharifullah. He was the mastermind of Abbey Gate attack that occurred during evacuation operation of US forces from Afghanistan in 2021. India, still reading it as one standalone incident launched an offensive on Pakistan in May 2025, after a terror incident occurred in Pehalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, leading to a four-day conflict between both countries.
The conflict resulted in a situation that dazzled analysts around the world. Rather than deepening Pakistan’s pariah status, the conflict triggered new shows of support for Islamabad. Turkey, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and China emerged in support of Pakistan post conflict. The United States, for the first time in years, floated the idea of mediating on Kashmir, bringing it back to the global stage. Pakistan’s victory against a larger military became evident, soon. President Trump invited the Field Marshal, Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir for a meeting and later again he visited US to attend ceremony for the new CENTCOM chief. As the speculations of Pakistan’s significance increased, the country took everyone by surprise as it signed a vital Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement with Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In the deal both countries committed that attack on one will be considered attack on the other. Prior to making this commitment, Pakistan’s Prime Minister attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Prime Minister’s summit held in China. Pakistan outshined at the forum as a joint statement was released that condemned cross-border terrorism into Pakistan, directing towards Pakistan’s diplomatic success. Later, Pakistan shared stage with Russian President Putin, Chinese Premier Xi Jiang and North Korean ruler Kim John joining them for Memorial Day parade held in China for sacrifices in WWII.
Today, the isolation policy of India stands at an ambiguous juncture. The multipolar global system where multilateralism is thriving, isolation has become unsustainable. The isolation policy of India towards Pakistan’s displays limitations of the policy as an instrument of realpolitik. It created a space for New Delhi to seize the diplomatic initiative, reduce engagement costs, and score points with domestic audiences. Yet over time, the strategy ran up against the constraints of a global system in which no major state can be easily cordoned off. The broader lesson extends beyond South Asia. Isolationism assumes that denying an adversary access and legitimacy will eventually force it to concede. In practice, however, states tend to seek and often secure compensating partnerships. Realpolitik thus contains its own paradox: the very pragmatism that drives isolation also drives others to counterbalance it. India’s experience shows that isolation may deliver tactical advantages but is unlikely to “win” in the enduring sense.
