Rajnath Singh Refuses to Sign SCO Defence Pact in China Over Pahalgam Silence, Balochistan Bias

In a significant diplomatic gesture that underscores India’s firm stance against terrorism and double standards in multilateral forums, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign a key defence-related document at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting held in China. The Indian delegation objected to the omission of a condemnation of the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir while the document curiously included references to Balochistan, a region where Pakistan has long faced accusations of severe human rights violations.

The SCO Document Dispute

The SCO, which includes China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and several Central Asian countries, held its annual Defence Ministers’ meeting in Beijing. During the drafting of a joint communiqué, India raised strong objections to a portion of the final text. The proposed document not only failed to mention or condemn the terrorist attack in Pahalgam on June 16, which resulted in the death of several Indian security personnel and civilians, but also included politically charged language on Balochistan, a Pakistani province often highlighted by Islamabad as a grievance against foreign interference.

Sources familiar with the negotiations said that India viewed the silence on the Pahalgam attack as a deliberate omission that undermined the global fight against terrorism. The inclusion of Balochistan, meanwhile, was seen as an indirect effort to equate Pakistan's internal insurgency with India's counter-terrorism operations in Kashmir—a comparison India has repeatedly rejected.

Rajnath Singh, during the closed-door session, is reported to have clearly expressed that unless terrorism in all forms was unequivocally condemned, particularly incidents that targeted India, New Delhi could not be a party to the statement. Consequently, India became the only SCO member not to endorse the document, marking a rare but firm diplomatic dissent.

The Hypocrisy Around Balochistan

The inclusion of Balochistan in the SCO communiqué raises deeper concerns. Pakistan has long used international forums to portray Balochistan as a victim of external interference, especially alleging Indian support for separatists. However, this narrative often deflects from the chronic and grave human rights violations carried out by the Pakistani state in the region.

For decades, Balochistan has remained a hotbed of unrest due to systemic neglect, resource exploitation, and suppression of political voices. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have documented thousands of cases of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture in the province. Families of missing persons frequently hold protests demanding accountability, with little to no response from Pakistani authorities.

The case of abducted Baloch activists is particularly harrowing. Students, journalists, human rights defenders, and members of civil society critical of the Pakistani military’s role in Balochistan have been forcibly taken from their homes, often never to return. According to local rights groups, over 5,000 people have gone missing over the past two decades, while the actual numbers may be even higher.

Activists such as Mama Qadeer Baloch have led long marches and peaceful protests to raise awareness about the atrocities in Balochistan, but such efforts are often met with intimidation or outright bans. In international circles, however, Pakistan continues to label Baloch dissent as “terrorism” while seeking global sympathy for alleged interference, all while denying basic civil rights to its own people.

India’s Stand: A Broader Message

India’s decision to walk away from the SCO statement is not merely a diplomatic snub—it’s a pointed reminder that counter-terrorism commitments cannot be selective, and that human rights must not be overshadowed by political narratives. By refusing to lend credibility to a document that implicitly legitimized Pakistan’s narrative on Balochistan while ignoring real acts of terrorism in Kashmir, India has drawn a clear red line.

This act also signals a growing maturity in India’s foreign policy, where participation in multilateral organizations is not seen as unconditional. It reiterates New Delhi’s demand for an honest global discourse on terrorism—one that is not hostage to geopolitical agendas.

While China and Pakistan may attempt to steer regional dialogues in directions that suit their interests, India’s refusal to rubber-stamp biased narratives indicates that global legitimacy still hinges on fairness, consistency, and truth.