How "Diplomatic" is "Diplomatic" Communication?

Nilofar Suhrawardy

Diplomatic communication exercised by India-following the four-day war with Pakistan has, ironically, raised several questions, which still remain largely unanswered. This primarily also refers to delegations sent by India to more than 30 countries after a ceasefire, described by India as "pause" in the war. Seven delegations were sent to convince other countries about "terrorist" designs of Pakistan. The world is well aware that India and Pakistan are "permanent enemies." This also suggests that no country expects either India or Pakistan to speak well about each other. On its part, India tried exercising a smart diplomatic strategy. But its credibility and its reach were limited. Undeniably, these delegations received substantial media coverage. This was however largely limited to India. There is yet another angle regarding nature of these delegations which cannot be missed. Members of these delegations were not confined to ruling coalition (Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] and its allies), but each included members from opposition parties. Besides, each included at least one member from the minority community. One cannot but deliberate on what was the primary reason behind this. Maybe, India desired to present its image as a "united," "secular" country.

Several views have circulated regarding inclusion of opposition members. It may be noted, members selected from opposition parties have great personalities and most are well known as good speakers, particularly in English. Of course, BJP is not devoid of such members. It is also possible; an aim of BJP may have been to attract these members to its party. However, it cannot be ignored that most of these opposition members have a strong base in their respective parties and a few have their own parties. Besides, they have strongly spoken against BJP in the Parliament on several issues. Including them was perhaps of BJP's plan to gain greater publicity for this diplomatic drive. It did for a while, but now it seems, it bears little relevance as it hardly is talked about.

The preceding point suggests that it would be probably erroneous to regard the diplomatic communication engaged in by sending delegations to various countries as a "success." In addition, given that the same countries have their embassies in India, instead of sending delegations there, interaction with their envoys here itself could have been attempted to "convince" them about New Delhi's stand. In addition, India has its envoys posted in the same countries that probably have played their respective diplomatic parts on this front. It is amazing, within just a day or two of their visits to selected countries, delegations were expected to do more than what envoys have attempted.

Besides, it is difficult to accept, that a brief interaction with Indian delegation was expected to succeed in making leaders of other countries accept and believe what India desired. India, it must be accepted is not a superpower. And Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi does not have the same stature as that of United States' President Donald Trump. Nowadays, quite a few countries find it difficult to believe and accept credibility of even what Trump says. Against this backdrop, one is compelled to question the strategic credibility of diplomatic communication indulged in by India by sending delegations. They were not invited. India sent them out of its own choice and decision. It may be viewed as one-sided diplomatic communication indulged in by India. From this angle, it is possible; the greater motive was this strategy's "appeal" for people within India. This was viewed politically important in view of forthcoming assembly elections.

Clearly, it is apparent, that it is difficult to view "diplomatic communication" engaged in by India following the four-day Indo-Pak war as diplomatic. Nor can the communication-strategy exercised be regarded as effective. In essence, diplomatic strategy on convincing other countries' leaders is developed gradually over a period of time through exercise of various communication tools. Considering that India appears to have been "forced" or perhaps "forced" itself to exercise it in this manner only suggests that it has probably not given it much importance for quite some time. Besides, with international media having kept a close eye on India-Pakistan tension and leaders of a few countries having interacted with leaders of both countries while the war lasted, they certainly were not oblivious of what the sub-continent had been through. Certainly, communication strategies can be exercised and manipulated as desired by those in power in the domestic terrain but the same cannot be done in foreign land. Besides, it is important to keep in mind, Modi is an Indian ruler and as mentioned earlier, India is not a superpower. Even at home, at present, his party is in power because of support offered by its allies as it failed to win majority in 2024 parliamentary elections. Even if diplomatic cards are used to the utmost, their success is dependent on whether communication strategy exercised can be really be viewed as diplomatic or not.

Ironically, diplomatic communication exercised by other countries, including United States, has faced too many tests in recent past raising questions about its credibility. One is compelled to question intentions of those engaged in this exercise and more. There is no doubt that as United States is a superpower, its diplomacy is given substantial importance globally. In other words, there is little doubt, that its diplomacy cannot be ignored. President Trump appears to have no qualms about throwing his diplomatic weight around and attracting the maximum attention possible. In essence, he appears to be extra-concerned about gaining maximum possible media coverage too. It isn't surprising that to a degree, sections of American media are viewed as probably controlled. Where US diplomacy is concerned, it would be perhaps erroneous to view that pursued by Trump along party lines that is Republican. This may be illustrated by their being practically no difference, till date, in policies of US Presidents- whether Republican or Democratic- towards Russia, United Kingdom, Israel and other countries. The difference lies in manner of their pursuing the same. As for instance, many chose to pursue these silently, while Trump does the same loudly and openly, together with taking the credit for it.

His predecessor, Joe Biden's stand towards Ukraine was reflected by United States' arm supplies for Ukraine. Biden barely gave any diplomatic importance to considering any ceasefire and end the conflict. It was and is apparent that Ukraine-crisis is viewed by Washington as "war" between USA and Russia. Undeniably, at a point-that is initially, Trump did make noise about bringing all conflicts to a halt. This included his stand regarding Ukraine-crisis also. His recent comments (July 15, 2025), clearly indicated that there seems no change in his approach towards Ukraine from what was displayed by Biden. Regarding his talk about "ceasefire," Trump has indulged in it on various other fronts too without much consistency. This only suggests that his diplomatic approach towards "ceasefire" cannot be dependent on for too long. This is fairly evident in his diplomatic approach regarding Gaza-ceasefire as well as that deliberated on the Iran front, prior to 12-day Iran-Israel war.

There is no denying, Trump's "stand" on ceasefires has earned him media coverage and also enhanced the importance of his diplomatic role on certain issues. However, this is one side of the diplomatic picture. It would have had some "diplomatic" significance if ceasefire was actually pursued. This is hardly suggested by continuity of Israeli strikes against Palestinians, Gaza-genocide, their being moved towards "concentration camps" with the real aim probably being "ethnic cleansing." The immediate question is naturally when and how was "ceasefire" even considered, if not seriously than at least minimally? But, yes, certainly "diplo­matic" importance as well as abundant media coverage has been accorded to whatever has been voiced by Trump along these lines. What does this really imply? What can one say about hype raised about "ceasefire" as well as it being considered along "conditional" lines? It seems, irrespective of limited, minimal and/or no element of ceasefire's implementation, it did bear some importance for Trump. Notwithstanding the fact that it invited criticism also, what probably pleased Trump was his being in the lime­light? Simply speaking, its primary significance was apparently that of Trump's "diplomatic" approach regarding ceasefire gaining global attention along with media coverage.

In the name of ceasefire, whether diplomacy may be viewed as having failed, succeeded or having had limited impact, what carries relevance here is its contribution to gaining substantial coverage as well as attention. Paradoxically, this clearly points to a strange linkage of the manner in which diplomatic communication seems to be exercised nowadays. Diplomatically, success or failure on certain issues bears little importance if the same succeeds in helping master strategists gain the required global attention, including media coverage. Undeniably, required tools of communication help their stand gain limelight. Clearly, media coverage as well as other tools of communication, including official press releases, diplomatic interaction help key players propagate their stand, irrespective of the fact that little importance is held by the same diplomatically. It may be noted, effective impact of diplomatic communication, that is its success, seems to hold little relevance. Continuation of war, without any ceasefire, even though latter is talked about can hardly be viewed as diplomacy being actually practised. But that "diplomatic" communication in this direction plays its role cannot be ignored. Its role as pointed out is that of propagating "diplomatic rhetoric" for the sake of gaining attention and not actually its implementation. This clearly stands out in "diplomatic" communication by US and to a degree by its allies about "cease­fire" in several areas.

The new importance being gained by "diplomatic" communication, ironically, seems hardly directed towards actual diplomatic pursuits. This issue, that is "diplomatic" communication, may not have demanded attention if in recent days, it was hardly marked by any diplomatic purpose. Nowadays, it seems to be given greater importance by certain powers with little concern for diplomatic success, with focus on dialogue replacing conflict. That is, it is not playing the role it is actually supposed to, diplomatically. Paradoxically, not too long ago, US seemed to be giving some importance to talks with Iran. Certainly, these had apparently been initiated with several rounds having been held regarding Iran's nuclear programme. But soon it became difficult to accept that the real intention behind their being initiated was really diplomatic. Nevertheless, it is possible, Israel was not pleased by prospects of its key supporter considering "diplomatic" ties with its enemy -Iran. Israel has never kept its animosity with Iran a secret. Nor it ever had two opinions about striking at Iran. What matters here in context of United States' communication diplomacy is timing of Israel having initi­ated the strikes. It is well known that Israel banks immensely on support from US. Without sup­port from US, it has been said, Israel's war against Iran would not have lasted 12 days. This war had no winner or loser, to end which, US had to adopt a tough stand following Iran's strikes against its base in Qatar and as Israel couldn't afford to continue, it yielded.

The 12-day war may be viewed as a strong test of United States' diplomatic communication. When Israel launched pre­emptive strikes against Iran, United States' approach regarding its talks with Iran was certainly put to a strong test. United States' diplomatic communication had little relevance while the war lasted. The same lost its credibility when US chose to actually get openly involved in the war.

The height reached by various tools of communication have certainly enhanced their importance as important means of diplomacy also, that is diplomatic communication. The hard truth is that the same loses its credibility when it is not genuinely practised to pursue diplomacy but is accompanied by war-oriented moves. Paradoxically, undue importance is accorded to communication, the nature of which is hardly genuine. It is clearly largely biased - based on manufactured news - leading to communication gaps, communication lapses, misunderstandings, communication errors and so forth. This marks indulgence in "diplomatic" rhetoric or communication with hardly any concern for peace and/or diplomacy. Given that it is primarily motivated towards promoting a particular image in addition to war-oriented moves, viewing the same as diplomatic communication would probably be erroneous.

If communication at various levels and in different parts of world was controlled only by one party/country or primarily by those favouring it, it would not have been easy to raise questions about its nature. Since it is not, it is not difficult for recipients of "news" to comprehend when it is genuine/real and when it is not. In this context, manipulated diplomatic communication does succeed in promoting images and also flattering egos but its diplomatic credibility isn't easily acceptable and it faces strong criticism. Not surprisingly, the amazing degree to which manipulated diplomatic communication has begun being exercised is posing a strong test for diplomacy, communication and also quite a few nations' foreign policies, including that of United States!

[Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialisation in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy. She has come out with several books. These include—Modi's Victory, A Lesson for the Congress...? (2019); Arab Spring, Not Just a Mirage! (2019), Image and Substance, Modi's First Year in Office (2015) and Ayodhya Without the Communal Stamp, In the Name of Indian Secularism (2006)]

Back to Home Page

Frontier Autumn Number
Vol 58, No. 14 - 17, Sep 28 - Oct 25, 2025