India's insistence on 'no double standards' on terrorism faces structural limits in the SCO's consensus-based framework. Critically examine.

At the 25th SCO Council of Heads of Government in Dushanbe (October 2026), India urged members to dismantle the "entire ecosystem" of terrorism: no justification, no double standards and no safe havens [1]. However, the SCO acts only when all ten members agree. The consensus rule therefore limits India's demand, but it does not defeat it.

Structural limits

• Single-member veto: China and Pakistan sit alongside India as full members [2]. Either can strip cross-border terror language from a text.
• Qingdao precedent (June 2025): the Defence Ministers' meeting produced no agreed outcome document because members did not reach consensus [3]. India refused to sign a draft that left out the Pahalgam attack [4].
• Words without teeth: SCO declarations name no individuals and carry no penalties. Sanctions listing happens at the UN, where Masood Azhar's 1267 listing stayed pending from 2009 to May 2019 [5].
• Limited agenda control: India warned that "more institutions" do not mean "greater achievements" [1]. This shows India does not steer where the grouping is heading.

Why the limits are not absolute

• Consensus is also India's shield: the same veto let India block the Qingdao text instead of endorsing a selective one [4].
• Norms shift over time: the Tianjin Declaration (Sep 2025) condemned Pahalgam, demanded that perpetrators be brought to justice and rejected double standards. Pakistan and China signed it [4].
• Institutional foothold: India pays 5.9% of the SCO budget and holds quota posts in the Secretariat and in RATS, Tashkent [2].
• Strategic necessity: the SCO is India's key table with Russia and Central Asia, which matter for INSTC and Chabahar [1].

Way forward

• Keep refusing diluted texts. The Qingdao refusal came before Tianjin's stronger wording [4].
• Repeat the same language at the UNSC, Quad and BRICS to isolate holdouts [3].
• Convert SCO commitments into UN 1267 listings through partner coordination, as in 2019 [5].

Consensus limits how far India can turn SCO rhetoric into punitive action, but it also protects India from selective texts. Principled refusals, combined with building coalitions at the UN, can turn "no double standards" from a slogan into a shared norm. This would advance India's vision of a SECURE SCO, built on security and respect for sovereignty [2].