Jagannath Panda
The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam was not just another act of violence – it was a chilling reminder of the brutal threats that still plague the Indian subcontinent. Yet, while many in the international community rushed to condemn the attack, the response from the European Union (EU) was, at best, lukewarm and strategically cautious.
India responded with justified outrage via Operation Sindoor, taking firm and decisive action against terrorism. The response was not merely reactive. New Delhi has, over the years, built a robust counterterrorism doctrine that aligns both with domestic imperatives and international norms. Through diplomatic engagements, intelligence cooperation, and military precision, as seen in post-Uri and Balakot responses, India has consistently demonstrated strategic maturity in the face of provocation.
However, even as support poured in from various individual European nations, the EU’s reaction as a bloc, though outwardly condemnatory, seemed carefully calibrated to avoid uncomfortable truths. By refusing to call out Pakistan – a nation with a well-documented history of harboring militant networks – and by urging “de-escalation” instead, the EU defaulted to its usual posture of studied neutrality.
This episode prompts a necessary reflection: Why does the EU often refrain from taking an unequivocal stance when terrorism strikes South Asia? While European leaders rightly expect solidarity in response to attacks on their own soil, their reluctance to address security threats in India with similar clarity reveals an enduring inconsistency in approach.
