India has refused to sign the joint statement at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) defence ministers’ summit in China, citing the document’s failure to reflect its concerns about terrorism—particularly the Pahalgam attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 civilians in April.
Indian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated on Thursday that the omission was “not acceptable to one particular country,” without naming names. However, Indian media widely reported that the statement’s failure to mention the Pahalgam attack—and its inclusion of violence in Pakistan’s Balochistan region—was perceived by New Delhi as one-sided and “pro-Pakistan.”
The refusal by India to sign the document highlights growing diplomatic tensions within the SCO, a regional bloc originally created by China, Russia, and Central Asian nations to counterbalance Western influence. India and Pakistan joined the grouping in 2017.
What Sparked the Disagreement?
The Pahalgam attack, which occurred in April, involved a deadly assault on tourist convoys in the sensitive Kashmir region. India has blamed the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba for the killings, accusing Islamabad of sheltering terrorists. Pakistan has denied all involvement.
In contrast, the joint SCO statement mentioned militant activity in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, an area where Islamabad accuses India of backing separatists—an allegation India flatly denies.
According to Indian officials, the imbalance in how these incidents were represented—or omitted—prompted Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to withhold India’s endorsement of the document.
“Some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of policy and provide shelter to terrorists. There should be no place for such double standards,” Rajnath Singh said in his address, without explicitly naming Pakistan.
Backdrop of Escalating Indo-Pak Tensions
India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir since independence, and the April Pahalgam attack nearly sparked another armed conflict. In May, India responded with airstrikes on suspected militant bases in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Pakistan retaliated with drone strikes and missile launches, escalating tensions until a 10 May ceasefire agreement was announced by U.S. President Donald Trump. India, however, maintains the truce was reached bilaterally without foreign mediation.
Why the SCO Statement Matters
The joint statement, though symbolic, reflects geopolitical alignments and power balances within the SCO. India’s refusal to sign it signals deep unease with what it views as selective regional solidarity on counterterrorism.
It also underscores the challenges of consensus within multilateral groups that include arch-rivals like India and Pakistan. In previous years, SCO members have struggled to reach agreement on language around terrorism, sovereignty, and border disputes.
The SCO defence ministers’ summit is a precursor to the leaders’ summit scheduled for this autumn, where these disagreements may further surface.
Diplomatic Fallout and Strategic Implications
India’s bold stand could earn it regional support from countries concerned about the normalization of cross-border terrorism. However, it also risks deepening fault lines within the SCO and complicating future cooperation.
As China, the host of this year’s summit, seeks to maintain cohesion in the group, India’s move may also strain ties with Beijing, especially amid ongoing border tensions in eastern Ladakh.
Pakistan, on the other hand, has used the platform to raise its concerns about Indian involvement in Balochistan, further inflaming the already tense relationship.
What’s Next?
Whether the omission of the Pahalgam attack was intentional or a diplomatic oversight, India’s refusal to endorse the SCO joint statement is a clear signal of its evolving assertive foreign policy and its unwillingness to remain silent on global platforms.
As the region prepares for the SCO leaders’ summit later this year, all eyes will be on whether the bloc can navigate internal divisions or whether this rift marks the beginning of deeper fragmentation.
