How far has India been able to use multilateral platforms to build an international consensus against cross-border terrorism after Operation Sindoor?

Since Operation Sindoor (2025), India has used the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to argue that terrorism must be tackled at its source. Rajnath Singh told the Qingdao meeting that "every act of terrorism is criminal and unjustifiable" [1]. India has had partial success: it has kept its position on record and blocked weaker wording, but it has not yet turned that into consensus.

Gains: what India has achieved

• Same message at every level: Qingdao Defence Ministers' meeting (2025) [1], Bishkek (2026) [3] and the Council of Heads of Government in Dushanbe, where India called for dismantling the "entire ecosystem of terrorism" [5].
• Operation Sindoor presented as self-defence: at Bishkek, Singh said "terrorism epicentres are no longer immune" and asked for action against those who shelter and provide safe havens to terrorists [3].
• Blocking weaker wording: India refused to sign the Qingdao document because it left terrorism out. The meeting ended without a joint statement [2].
• Agreed SCO wording already exists: the Heads of State statement on Countering Radicalisation leading to Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism, issued during India's chairmanship [1].

Limits: where consensus fails

• The consensus rule: Jaishankar said "one country" objected to any mention of terrorism [2]. Each side can block the other, so the result is a stalemate, not agreement.
• General statements pass, naming does not: members accept condemnation in general. A text that names a specific attack such as Pahalgam, or its sponsors, gets blocked [2].
• Members with different interests: Pakistan and China sit inside the SCO, so wording that points at a sponsor is unlikely to pass.
• Risk of looking like the blocker: saying the same thing again without results can look like a ritual. It can also make India seem obstructive.

Way forward

• Base new drafts on wording the SCO has already agreed [1]. A member that blocks them is then going back on its own earlier statement.
• Push language against safe havens and terror financing in general, without naming a country [3].
• Make the case that the SCO's trade and connectivity agenda [4] needs security first.

Overall, India has used multilateral forums well to defend its position and keep a record, but not yet to win consensus. Linking counter-terrorism to the SCO's own development goals offers the best route to a principled consensus against terrorism, in line with SDG 16 (peace and strong institutions).