7 Bold Words: Jaishankar Slams Pakistan Over Osama bin Laden and Terror Links
Jaishankar in Brussels – India’s Strategic Voice in a Multipolar World
Brussels, June 2025 — As global powers navigate an increasingly fractured geopolitical landscape, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has delivered a candid and strategic assessment of India’s foreign policy doctrine during his visit to Brussels. In a high-profile interview with Euractiv, one of Europe’s leading political news platforms, Jaishankar articulated New Delhi’s stance on a wide range of global issues—from terrorism and regional stability in South Asia to the Russia-Ukraine war, global economic realignment, and the evolving climate policy framework in the European Union.
Jaishankar’s remarks were a potent mix of realism, historical recall, and forward-looking strategic vision—demonstrating India’s emerging confidence as a decisive actor in the multipolar world. Central to his messaging was the call for the West, and Europe in particular, to re-evaluate outdated lenses through which it views South Asian affairs, especially the India-Pakistan dynamic.
Reframing the Pakistan Narrative: Terrorism, Not Territorialism
At the heart of Jaishankar’s appeal to Europe was a passionate insistence that the global community cease treating India’s actions in response to cross-border terrorism as merely a bilateral border conflict with Pakistan. Instead, he urged a recognition that India’s fight is against terrorism itself, not a conventional state rival. Drawing a stark reference to global terror history, Jaishankar rhetorically asked:
“Why did Osama bin Laden feel safe living for years in a Pakistani military town, right next to their equivalent of West Point?”
This pointed reference to the world’s most notorious terrorist being found and killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, just a short distance from a major military academy, reinforced India’s long-standing argument about Islamabad’s duplicity in harbouring extremists.
By invoking Osama bin Laden, Jaishankar strategically internationalized the discourse, linking India’s anti-terror operations—such as Operation Sindoor—to broader global security concerns. He stressed:
“This isn’t merely an India-Pakistan issue. It’s about terrorism. And that very same terrorism will eventually come back to haunt you.”
This reframing challenges European governments and media to shift their analytical frameworks, urging them to move away from simplistic “nuclear neighbours” conflict narratives and to engage with the structural and ideological threats posed by terrorism nurtured within Pakistan’s security complex.
Operation Sindoor and the Post-Pahalgam Era
The remarks come in the wake of India’s robust response to the Pahalgam terror attack under Operation Sindoor, which has reignited public and diplomatic debate about New Delhi’s counter-terror posture. Operation Sindoor, widely seen as one of India’s most strategic and calibrated military retaliations, signaled a doctrinal shift—one where India’s response to asymmetric threats is swift, legal, and internationally defensible.
However, Jaishankar’s interview signals that New Delhi is not content with only military deterrence—it seeks to reshape the narrative globally. The message to the EU is clear: Western ambivalence or attempts to equate victim and aggressor do not serve the broader goal of defeating terrorism.
Memory, History, and the Western Hypocrisy
In a particularly reflective segment of the interview, Jaishankar invoked the early history of post-independence India. He recalled that just months after India achieved sovereignty in 1947, Pakistan launched a military invasion of Kashmir, which was aided and abetted by tribal militias. He noted:
“Our borders were violated just months after independence. And the countries that were most supportive of that? Western countries.”
This historical reckoning was not merely a rhetorical flourish. It was a calculated diplomatic reminder that Western governments, many of whom now preach international law and territorial integrity, have often looked the other way when it came to aggression against India. Jaishankar’s tone was both assertive and reconciliatory—he wasn’t seeking confrontation, but rather introspection from Europe’s leadership.
“If those same countries, who were evasive or reticent then, now say ‘let’s have a great conversation about international principles’, I think I’m justified in asking them to reflect on their own past.”
This challenge to the West’s historical moral high ground was among the most powerful assertions of India’s evolved geopolitical posture: one that no longer seeks validation, but equal footing.
Strategic Neutrality and Global Realism – India’s Position on the Russia-Ukraine War
As Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar continued his wide-ranging conversation with Euractiv in Brussels, the topic shifted toward one of the most contentious geopolitical issues of the decade: the Russia-Ukraine conflict. While many Western nations, particularly in the EU and NATO, have clearly aligned against Moscow through sweeping sanctions and military assistance to Kyiv, India has chosen a more neutral and pragmatic path—one that prioritizes diplomacy, sovereignty, and strategic autonomy.
Jaishankar made it unequivocally clear that India’s position on the Russia-Ukraine war is informed not by political convenience or economic alignment, but by principle and national interest.
“We don’t believe that differences can be resolved through war—we don’t believe a solution will come from the battlefield,” he said.
This statement encapsulates India’s long-standing philosophy of non-alignment, but with a modern, realist update. India, according to Jaishankar, does not seek to moralize conflicts from afar. Rather, it focuses on building its own geopolitical narrative rooted in sovereignty, mutual respect, and constructive engagement.
Neither Prescriptive Nor Judgemental
Critics in the West have often portrayed India’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine war as ambiguous or opportunistic. However, Jaishankar rejected this framing, asserting that India’s foreign policy remains one of strategic autonomy—India is neither prescriptive in telling others what to do, nor judgemental of their choices.
“It’s not for us to prescribe what that solution should be. My point is, we’re not being prescriptive or judgemental—but we are also not uninvolved,” he clarified.
India’s diplomacy during the Ukraine crisis has involved active humanitarian assistance, calls for ceasefires, and persistent engagement with both Moscow and Kyiv. Yet, it has refused to follow the West in imposing sanctions or severing long-standing ties with Russia. This balance, Jaishankar insisted, is not neutrality out of indifference but an expression of India’s maturity as a global power.
The Historical Context: Why India Stands Where It Does
To further contextualize India’s stand, Jaishankar evoked India’s own historical experiences with the West—particularly during moments of existential crisis such as the Kashmir invasion in 1947–48 and the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. In both cases, many Western nations either remained silent or actively supported Pakistan.
“India has the longest-standing grievance—our borders were violated just months after independence. And the countries that were most supportive of that? Western countries,” Jaishankar pointed out.
This historical reference is critical to understanding the ideological underpinnings of India’s strategic culture. India does not forget that the Western world has often turned a blind eye to aggression against it, even while advocating international norms and rules elsewhere.
The Foreign Minister made it clear that such selective morality reduces the credibility of the West’s global rhetoric today. When Western nations question India’s continued trade and diplomatic engagements with Russia, Jaishankar’s response is firm: India’s partnerships are based on national interest, not global posturing.
Navigating Multipolarity: The Case for a Decentralized Global Order
One of the defining themes of Jaishankar’s Brussels dialogue was the rise of multipolarity—a world order where power is dispersed across several influential states and regional blocs, instead of being dominated by one or two superpowers.
“Europe now faces the need to make more decisions in its own interest—using its own capabilities, and based on the relationships it fosters globally,” he observed.
This remark was not just an analysis—it was a subtle endorsement of Europe’s ongoing attempts at achieving “strategic autonomy,” a term often used in EU policymaking circles. Jaishankar reminded his European audience that India has long championed such autonomy and is eager to partner with a more self-reliant Europe.
India’s Role as a Global Stabilizer
India, according to Jaishankar, is uniquely positioned to serve as a stabilizing force in the current global flux. With strong relationships across all major power centres—Washington, Brussels, Moscow, and increasingly, Tokyo and the Gulf—India is leveraging its diplomatic capital to push for inclusive and pragmatic international frameworks.
Jaishankar emphasized that New Delhi is not interested in bloc politics. It sees itself as a pole in a multipolar system—one that seeks constructive dialogue over confrontation.
“That is precisely why I’m here: to deepen our relationship in this multipolar world,” Jaishankar said, framing his Brussels visit as a symbol of India-EU convergence in a divided world.
Climate Tensions and Carbon Tax – India’s Deep Reservations on EU’s CBAM
While much of S. Jaishankar’s interaction in Brussels focused on geopolitics, trade, and counterterrorism, one of the most diplomatically sensitive topics discussed was climate regulation—specifically, the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
This controversial carbon tax, designed to curb carbon leakage by imposing tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, has been a major point of contention between India and the EU. Jaishankar did not hold back in expressing India’s strong opposition to the mechanism, making it clear that such unilateral measures pose a threat to developing economies and the principles of climate equity.
“We have very deep reservations about CBAM, and we’ve been quite open about it,” the Minister stated.
Understanding CBAM: A Carbon Wall in the Making
The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is a part of the EU’s larger Green Deal. It proposes tariffs on carbon-intensive imports such as steel, cement, aluminium, fertilizers, and electricity. In essence, exporters from countries that do not impose equivalent carbon pricing will be taxed when entering the EU market.
The policy, from a European perspective, is aimed at leveling the playing field and preventing carbon leakage, whereby businesses might relocate to regions with laxer environmental norms. But for emerging economies like India, CBAM is perceived as a non-tariff barrier masked as environmental policy.
India’s Objection: Equity, Sovereignty, and Climate Colonialism
Jaishankar framed India’s rejection of CBAM not just as an economic grievance but as a matter of principle and climate justice. The notion that one part of the world—primarily the industrialized West—can unilaterally set global climate standards, and enforce them on developing countries, was described as deeply problematic.
“The idea that one part of the world will set standards for everybody else is something which we are against,” Jaishankar said candidly.
India views CBAM as a policy that undermines the UNFCCC’s core principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), which recognizes the historical emissions of developed countries and their greater obligation in tackling climate change.
Jaishankar’s remarks underscored India’s long-standing position: developing nations must be allowed the policy space to achieve low-carbon transitions at their own pace, without being penalized through arbitrary trade barriers.
The Economic Impact on India
From a trade perspective, CBAM threatens to affect key sectors of India’s export economy—notably steel and aluminium. As one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, India is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels for its industrial base. Imposing additional taxes could cripple the competitiveness of Indian goods in the European market.
For Indian manufacturers, CBAM creates a double burden—not only do they have to comply with domestic regulations but now also adjust to foreign climate benchmarks that may not align with India’s economic conditions or infrastructure capabilities.
Jaishankar pointed out that the EU’s approach ignores these disparities and risks creating a “green protectionist” system, where trade and climate goals are blended to serve the interests of developed economies.
India’s Commitment to Climate Action – But on Its Own Terms
Despite his criticism of CBAM, Jaishankar was quick to reiterate that India remains committed to climate action. Under the Paris Agreement, India has pledged to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 45% by 2030 (from 2005 levels) and achieve 50% cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil sources.
India has also launched global initiatives like International Solar Alliance and Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment), advocating sustainable consumption practices across the world.
However, the Minister made it clear that these actions stem from India’s sovereign choice, not external pressure.
“We don’t need to be lectured by those who polluted the planet for centuries,” he said in an earlier international forum—a sentiment echoed during the Brussels conversation.
A Call for Dialogue, Not Dictation
Jaishankar emphasized that instead of imposing unilateral taxes, the EU should engage in open, multilateral dialogue that respects the diversity of national contexts. India remains open to working with the EU on climate solutions, provided they are grounded in equity, transparency, and shared responsibility.
“Climate change requires global cooperation—not global coercion,” he affirmed.
In this light, CBAM risks becoming a wedge in India-EU trade negotiations, particularly as both sides are halfway through a long-anticipated Free Trade Agreement (FTA). If the EU continues with rigid enforcement of CBAM without concessions or flexibility, it may derail the broader economic partnership.
Bridging the Climate Divide: The Role of Technology and Finance
One of India’s proposals has been the transfer of clean technology and climate finance from the Global North to the Global South. Jaishankar reiterated that for India and other developing countries to meet their climate goals without compromising development, technology sharing and fair financing mechanisms must be prioritized.
India argues that adaptation and mitigation efforts should not come at the cost of poverty eradication, industrial growth, or energy access. This, Jaishankar stated, is a message the West must internalize if it wishes to foster genuine global cooperation.
Looking Ahead: India’s Stand Will Shape the Global Climate Debate
As international climate mechanisms evolve, India’s voice—especially through leaders like Jaishankar—is becoming increasingly influential. New Delhi’s stance on CBAM will likely set a precedent for how other developing economies engage with climate-related trade policies.
At stake is not just the future of the EU-India trade pact, but the very architecture of global climate governance—whether it will be dominated by unilateralism or built on mutual respect and collective action.
Terrorism, Trust, and Truth — India’s Global Call for Accountability on Pakistan
Among the most hard-hitting segments of External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s Brussels interview was his firm condemnation of Pakistan’s long-standing support for terrorism and his pointed criticism of how the global community—particularly the West and international media—continues to misframe India’s response to such threats.
His remarks, delivered with unmistakable clarity and conviction, were not merely an articulation of India’s national position—they were a moral appeal to the world to confront terrorism without geopolitical filters.
“This isn’t merely an India-Pakistan issue. It’s about terrorism,” Jaishankar declared emphatically. “And that very same terrorism will eventually come back to haunt you.”
Exposing Global Hypocrisy: The Osama bin Laden Reference
Jaishankar’s most piercing remark came in reference to Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who was found living undisturbed for years in Abbottabad, Pakistan, just a stone’s throw from a major Pakistani military academy.
“Let me remind you of something — there was a man named Osama bin Laden. Why did he, of all people, feel safe living for years in a Pakistani military town, right next to their equivalent of West Point?” Jaishankar asked, targeting the credibility of Pakistan’s claims and the silence of the global powers.
This rhetorical question—laden with historical weight—was more than a jab at Pakistan; it was a direct challenge to the world’s selective memory and double standards.
By invoking bin Laden, Jaishankar effectively reminded European policymakers and global stakeholders that terrorism is not a regional grievance, but a global menace that requires unbiased recognition and consistent condemnation.
Operation Sindoor and the Western Media’s Misrepresentation
Jaishankar was particularly critical of how Western media outlets framed India’s counterterrorism response—including Operation Sindoor, launched after the deadly Pahalgam terror attack—as a mere tit-for-tat military action between nuclear-armed neighbors.
“The world must stop reducing terrorism to a local dispute,” he said, challenging the notion that India’s responses are politically motivated or impulsive.
Instead, Jaishankar called on Europe and the West to recognize the ideological and operational roots of terrorism emanating from across India’s western border. He asserted that India’s fight against terrorism is rooted in national security and the protection of innocent lives, not nationalist aggression or border militarism.
By pushing this narrative, Jaishankar attempted to reshape global perceptions, urging Western governments and media to adopt a principle-based, rather than convenience-based, approach to terrorism.
The Cost of Indifference: Terrorism as a Boomerang
In a tone that blended warning with realism, Jaishankar underscored that nations that turn a blind eye to terrorism—either for strategic gain or diplomatic convenience—risk eventually becoming its victims.
He reminded the European Union and the broader Western world that terrorism is a transnational threat, unconstrained by borders, ideologies, or alliances. What begins in Kashmir or Kabul often metastasizes into attacks in London, Paris, New York, or Brussels.
“That very same terrorism will eventually come back to haunt you,” Jaishankar said, reiterating India’s long-standing position that terrorist safe havens and ideological sanctuaries must be dismantled wherever they exist.
From Diplomacy to Deterrence: India’s Policy Shift
Jaishankar’s words also reflected a deeper transformation in India’s foreign policy since the 2016 Uri attack and the subsequent surgical strikes, followed by the 2019 Pulwama attack and the Balakot airstrikes.
India’s strategic doctrine has increasingly evolved from reactive diplomacy to active deterrence, with New Delhi signaling that it will not hesitate to defend itself, with or without global consensus.
In Brussels, Jaishankar clarified that India’s posture does not seek escalation, but it does assert zero tolerance for terror. The message to the international community was unmistakable: support India’s counterterrorism efforts not out of sympathy, but out of shared interest in global security.
The Historical Context: Western Support for Pakistan in 1947 and After
Jaishankar also took the opportunity to expose historical contradictions in the West’s foreign policy, recalling the events of 1947 when Pakistan invaded Jammu and Kashmir shortly after India’s independence.
“Our borders were violated just months after independence, when Pakistan sent in invaders to Kashmir,” Jaishankar stated. “And the countries that were most supportive of that? Western countries.”
This historical grievance, long buried under diplomatic niceties, was invoked to highlight Western duplicity—supporting Pakistan in the past and now calling for dialogues and principles without acknowledging their own role in enabling earlier aggression.
Jaishankar wasn’t calling for a moral reckoning, but for a more honest, historically informed, and balanced approach to South Asia’s security landscape.
Toward a Global Counterterrorism Consensus
India, through Jaishankar’s voice, has consistently advocated for the comprehensive international cooperation on terrorism, including the adoption of the UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT)—a draft treaty India proposed as early as 1996.
Despite decades of dialogue, the CCIT remains stalled due to disagreements over the definition of terrorism, with several nations still reluctant to label groups aligned with their strategic interests as “terrorists.”
In Brussels, Jaishankar made it clear: the time for moral ambiguity has long passed. Nations must adopt a unified and uncompromising approach toward identifying, isolating, and eliminating terrorist entities.
India’s Ascent as a Voice of Global Conscience
What emerged from the Brussels interview was more than a policy speech—it was a statesman’s plea for global introspection. In a world where narratives are often shaped by power, Jaishankar’s intervention reminded the West that principles must not be sacrificed at the altar of geopolitics.
India, a nation that has weathered decades of terrorism, is not just defending its territory—it is advocating for a safer world order where terror is universally condemned and uniformly punished.
Shaping a Multipolar Future — India, Strategic Autonomy, and Global Realignment
While the sharp critiques of terrorism and historical inconsistencies dominated much of Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar’s Brussels interview, the concluding and perhaps most strategically profound section revolved around India’s vision for a multipolar global order and the shifting geopolitical tectonics that are already altering international diplomacy, economics, and strategic alliances.
In his characteristic realist tone, Jaishankar underscored that **multipolarity is no longer a theoretical future—**it is the new global reality. And India, with its growing economy, demographic power, and stable political system, is poised to be one of its most influential poles.
Multipolarity: Not a Goal, But a Reality
“Multipolarity is already here,” Jaishankar asserted, dismissing the notion that the world still revolves around a singular dominant power.
He pointed to the rise of regional powers with significant independent agency—from Europe and Southeast Asia to Latin America and Africa—as evidence that the unipolar moment following the Cold War has ended.
The implications of this view are immense. In a multipolar world, power and influence are decentralized, and nations can no longer rely solely on alliances rooted in Cold War-era mentalities. Instead, they must forge pragmatic, interest-based partnerships that recognize each other’s sovereign choices and regional priorities.
The EU as a Strategic Pole: India’s Embrace of European Autonomy
A core objective of Jaishankar’s visit to Brussels was to deepen ties with the European Union, which India now sees as a rising pole of strategic and economic weight in this multipolar order.
“Europe now faces the need to make more decisions in its own interest—using its own capabilities, and based on the relationships it fosters globally,” Jaishankar said.
This recognition of European strategic autonomy—what the EU has often called “open strategic autonomy”—marks a significant shift in India’s foreign policy calculus. Rather than viewing Europe as an adjunct to American or NATO-led policy frameworks, India now treats the EU as an independent actor capable of shaping its own path.
Jaishankar welcomed Europe’s evolution, adding, “I hear terms like ‘strategic autonomy’ being used in Europe—these were once part of our vocabulary.”
India’s Economic Diplomacy: The Free Trade Agreement with EU
India and the EU are midway through negotiations on a highly anticipated Free Trade Agreement (FTA). If concluded, the deal would be one of the most comprehensive economic partnerships ever signed by India and would unlock immense trade, investment, and technological collaboration.
Jaishankar was candid that the negotiations have not been easy.
“It’s a tough process. But both sides recognize the value in creating resilient, reliable, and equitable economic corridors that reduce overdependence on singular supply chains,” he said.
The FTA is not just about tariffs—it is about building a long-term, trusted economic relationship between democratic partners in a world that is increasingly wary of authoritarian influence and supply chain vulnerabilities.
On China: India as a Reliable and Trustworthy Alternative
Jaishankar directly addressed India’s growing appeal as a strategic alternative to China, particularly for European businesses looking to de-risk their investments and digital infrastructure.
“Many companies are becoming increasingly careful about where they locate their data—they’d rather place it somewhere secure and trustworthy than simply go for efficiency,” he said, in a clear reference to data security and transparency issues with China.
He emphasized that India offers a skilled labor force, legal transparency, democratic stability, and an innovation ecosystem that is already attracting global capital.
Jaishankar’s pitch was unmistakable: India is not only open for business—it is the safer bet for long-term global partnerships.
On CBAM and Climate Equity
Despite shared values, Jaishankar was unflinching in his criticism of EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)—a climate tax that the EU plans to levy on imports from countries deemed less climate-compliant.
“We have very deep reservations about CBAM,” Jaishankar said. “The idea that one part of the world will set standards for everybody else is something which we are against.”
He called for a more equitable and collaborative climate strategy, where the burden of global emissions is not disproportionately transferred to developing economies that historically contributed little to the climate crisis.
India’s stance reflects a broader concern across the Global South—that the green transition must be just and must not become a tool of economic coercion.
On the US and Trump: Policy Beyond Personalities
In response to a question about the return of Donald Trump and potential shifts in American policy, Jaishankar offered a principled view of diplomacy that transcends political personalities.
“I take the world as I find it. Our aim is to advance every relationship that serves our interests,” he said, adding that India’s relationship with the United States is of “immense importance” and will continue to grow irrespective of who occupies the White House.
This pragmatic approach underlines India’s transition from reactive diplomacy to sovereign strategic planning—where consistency in international relations is driven by national interest, not foreign electoral cycles.
India’s Expanding Diplomatic Footprint
Over the past decade, India has expanded its diplomatic, economic, and strategic presence across the globe—from leading initiatives in the Global South to deepening engagements with the G7, BRICS, Quad, SCO, and Indo-Pacific frameworks.
Jaishankar’s presence in Brussels is a testament to India’s multi-vector diplomacy, aimed at crafting a balanced web of global partnerships in an increasingly unpredictable world.
India is no longer content to be a participant in global processes—it seeks to shape them, based on values of sovereignty, security, development, and dignity.
Conclusion: The Jaishankar Doctrine — Assertive, Principled, and Strategic
The Brussels interview wasn’t just a routine diplomatic engagement—it was an exposition of what can be termed the Jaishankar Doctrine: a blend of strategic assertiveness, historical awareness, and global realism.
From condemning terrorism and critiquing Western double standards, to advocating for economic trust and multipolar collaboration, Jaishankar presented India as a confident civilizational power—ready to lead, not follow.
As the global order undergoes seismic changes, India’s foreign policy under Jaishankar is no longer confined to defending its borders or reacting to crises—it is proactively shaping the 21st-century world through diplomacy, development, and dialogue.
Also Read : 7 Incredible Moments from Puri as Lakhs Witness Lord Jagannath’s Grand Snana Yatra 2025
