SCO’s Stand On Pahalgam Attack: A Global Shift

Have you ever wondered what it takes for nations to come together in the face of tragedy? The 2025 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, a serene valley in Jammu and Kashmir, shook the world, claiming 26 lives and sparking a global conversation about cross-border terrorism. For me, the real story isn’t just the horror of that day—it’s how the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a powerful regional bloc, finally took a unified stand against this act of violence. Let’s dive into why this moment matters and what it means for the future of international cooperation.

A Turning Point for Global Unity

The SCO’s condemnation of the Pahalgam attack during its Tianjin summit wasn’t just another diplomatic statement. It was a bold declaration that terrorism, in all its forms, has no place in a world striving for peace. For years, nations have grappled with differing views on how to address cross-border terrorism, often caught in a web of political agendas. But this time, something shifted. The attack, carried out on April 22, 2025, in the picturesque Baisaran Valley, wasn’t just an assault on India—it was a challenge to humanity itself.

The SCO, comprising 10 member states including heavyweights like India, China, Russia, and Pakistan, had previously struggled to find common ground on such issues. Past meetings, like the one in Qingdao in June 2025, ended in discord when a joint statement failed to mention the Pahalgam attack, largely due to geopolitical maneuvering. So, what changed in Tianjin? Why did the SCO, including nations with complex relationships like India and Pakistan, finally agree to condemn this tragedy?

The Pahalgam Attack: A Brutal Wake-Up Call

The attack in Pahalgam was a gut punch. Armed militants, linked to a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, targeted tourists in a place known for its breathtaking beauty. Twenty-six lives were lost, including 25 Indian tourists and one Nepali, in a calculated act of violence that aimed to sow fear and division. The attackers’ brutality—selecting victims based on religion—sparked outrage across India and beyond, with protests erupting in Kashmir and candlelight vigils held in cities like Delhi and Bengaluru.

Terrorism isn’t just a threat to one nation—it’s a challenge to every society that values peace.

– Indian official addressing the SCO Summit

The attack wasn’t just a local tragedy; it reignited tensions between India and Pakistan, with India launching Operation Sindoor in retaliation, targeting terrorist hideouts across the border. This escalation underscored the stakes: without unified action, such attacks could spiral into broader conflicts. The SCO’s decision to address this head-on was a step toward acknowledging that terrorism doesn’t respect borders.

Why the SCO’s Stance Matters

The Tianjin Declaration, adopted on September 1, 2025, didn’t mince words. It explicitly condemned the Pahalgam attack, called for justice for the perpetrators, and rejected double standards in the fight against terrorism. This was a diplomatic coup, especially for India, which has long pushed for stronger global action against cross-border terrorism. But why is this declaration such a big deal? Let me break it down.

• Unified Voice: For the first time, SCO members, including Pakistan, agreed to condemn the attack, signaling a rare moment of consensus.
• Pressure on Sponsors: The declaration’s emphasis on holding perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors accountable puts pressure on nations that might tacitly support terrorism.
• Global Precedent: By addressing the attack in a major regional forum, the SCO sets a standard for other organizations like the UN to follow.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how this moment challenges the status quo. In my view, the SCO’s shift reflects a growing recognition that regional stability hinges on collective action. No single nation can tackle terrorism alone, and the Tianjin Declaration proves that even rival nations can find common ground when the stakes are high enough.

The Diplomatic Dance: India’s Role

India’s leadership was pivotal in securing this condemnation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi didn’t pull punches during his address at the summit, calling out nations that harbor terrorists and urging the SCO to reject double standards. His speech was a masterclass in balancing firmness with diplomacy, delivered in the presence of leaders from China, Russia, and Pakistan. It’s no secret that India’s relations with some SCO members have been fraught, yet Modi’s insistence on unity struck a chord.

India’s push wasn’t just about rhetoric. Before the summit, Indian officials lobbied hard to ensure the Pahalgam attack was addressed. This wasn’t easy, given past resistance from certain members. In June, for instance, a similar effort at the SCO Defense Ministers’ meeting failed when the draft statement omitted the attack, prompting India to refuse to sign. The Tianjin success shows that persistence pays off, but it also highlights the delicate diplomatic strategy required to navigate such forums.

In the fight against terrorism, unity is our greatest asset. Double standards are not just unacceptable—they’re dangerous.

– Indian diplomatic source

I’ve always believed that diplomacy is like a chess game—every move counts, and patience is key. India’s ability to rally the SCO, despite geopolitical tensions, is a testament to its growing influence on the global stage. But it also raises a question: can this unity hold, or was it a one-off?

Geopolitical Ripples: What’s at Stake?

The SCO’s condemnation isn’t just a win for India—it’s a signal to the world that terrorism is a shared enemy. But let’s not kid ourselves: the road ahead is tricky. The declaration also condemned attacks in Pakistan, like those on the Jaffar Express and in Khuzdar, as a nod to balance. This compromise shows the tightrope the SCO walks, trying to keep all members on board while addressing sensitive issues.

Here’s where it gets messy. Some nations, wary of alienating allies, have historically dragged their feet on condemning specific acts of terrorism. The fact that the SCO, with its diverse membership, managed to agree on this point is nothing short of remarkable. Yet, it also exposes fault lines. For instance, Pakistan’s initial reluctance to fully condemn the Pahalgam attack without caveats (like calling Kashmir “disputed”) suggests that old habits die hard.

The table above sums up the SCO’s evolving stance. It’s a reminder that diplomacy is rarely black-and-white. The inclusion of Pakistan’s attacks in the declaration was likely a concession to maintain harmony, but it doesn’t dilute the significance of the Pahalgam condemnation. If anything, it shows that the SCO is learning to navigate its internal complexities.

The Bigger Picture: Terrorism and Global Governance

Let’s zoom out for a second. The SCO’s stand isn’t just about one attack—it’s about the broader fight against terrorism. The declaration emphasized the need for international cooperation under the UN framework, a nod to the idea that no nation can go it alone. This is especially relevant in a world where cross-border terrorism thrives on fragmented responses.

Think about it: terrorists don’t care about borders, so why should our response be limited by them? The SCO’s call for justice against not just perpetrators but also their organizers and sponsors is a subtle jab at state-backed terrorism. It’s a message that resonates beyond Asia, touching on conflicts in places like the Middle East and Africa, where similar challenges persist.

1. Strengthen Global Frameworks: The SCO’s alignment with UN resolutions signals a push for unified global standards.
2. Counter Financing: Addressing the money trails behind terrorism, as highlighted by the Financial Action Task Force, is critical.
3. Regional Cooperation: The SCO’s diverse membership makes it a testing ground for broader international collaboration.

In my experience, the fight against terrorism often gets bogged down in politics. The SCO’s ability to rise above that, even momentarily, gives me hope. But it’s not all rosy—sustaining this momentum will require more than declarations. It’ll need concrete actions, like intelligence sharing and coordinated operations.

Challenges Ahead: Can the SCO Deliver?

Here’s the tough part: words are one thing, action is another. The SCO’s condemnation is a start, but turning it into meaningful change is the real test. For one, the organization’s structure—built on consensus—makes it hard to push bold initiatives when members have conflicting interests. Pakistan’s presence in the SCO, for instance, complicates matters, given its alleged links to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Then there’s the question of enforcement. The declaration calls for justice, but who holds the reins? The UN? National governments? The SCO itself? Without clear mechanisms, these statements risk becoming symbolic gestures. I’m cautiously optimistic, but I’ve seen too many grand promises fizzle out to get my hopes up too high.

Condemning terrorism is the easy part—following through is where the real work begins.

– Security analyst at the Tianjin Summit

Another hurdle is the SCO’s balancing act. By condemning attacks in both India and Pakistan, the organization avoided alienating any member, but it also diluted the focus on Pahalgam. Some might argue this was a necessary compromise, but others—like me—wonder if it risks muddying the waters. Clarity is key when dealing with something as serious as terrorism.

What’s Next for the SCO and Global Security?

The SCO’s condemnation of the Pahalgam attack is a milestone, but it’s not the finish line. Moving forward, the organization has a chance to redefine its role in global security. Initiatives like the proposed SCO development bank and increased focus on counterterrorism cooperation could strengthen its hand. But it’ll need to navigate geopolitical tensions carefully.

For India, this is a moment to build on. The country’s growing clout in forums like the SCO and BRICS shows it’s no longer just a regional player—it’s a global one. By continuing to push for accountability and unity, India can help shape the future of counterterrorism efforts. But it won’t be easy, especially with ongoing challenges like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which India opposes due to sovereignty concerns.

Counterterrorism Blueprint:
  50% International Collaboration
  30% Intelligence Sharing
  20% Targeted Sanctions

This blueprint, while simplified, captures the essence of what’s needed. The SCO has the potential to lead here, but only if it can move beyond diplomacy and into action. For now, the Tianjin Declaration is a step in the right direction—a signal that the world is watching, and the fight against terrorism is far from over.

So, what’s my take? The SCO’s stand on Pahalgam is a rare moment of clarity in a world often clouded by division. It’s a reminder that even in the face of tragedy, unity is possible. But the real test lies ahead—will the SCO, and the world, rise to the challenge? Only time will tell, but for now, this declaration is a beacon of hope in a turbulent world.