Pakistan's central role in backchannel diplomatic efforts in facilitating communication between the United States (US) and Iran, alongside other regional countries including Turkiye and Egypt, has triggered a wave of Indian reactions on social media platform X, with users questioning New Delhi’s absence from the diplomatic table. 

 

Pakistan, alongside Turkiye and Egypt, has been engaged in indirect messaging channels between Washington DC and Tehran. The proposed discussions, which may also involve high-level figures including US Vice President JD Vance, are being framed as part of a wider effort to de-escalate tensions in the Gulf region.

 

The development immediately sparked heated commentary among Indian netizens, many of whom questioned why India is not part of the diplomatic framework.

 

 A dominant narrative on X accused India’s foreign policy establishment of failing to secure strategic relevance in high-stakes global negotiations.

 

Several users argued that Pakistan’s inclusion reflects stronger “narrative positioning” and diplomatic outreach, while India’s absence was described as a setback in its aspiration for greater global influence. 

 

Another user described the situation as a diplomatic setback: “Embarrassing that Pakistan has become the epicentre of negotiations to end this war. It should have been and could well have been India.”

 

Some posts contrasted Pakistan’s current diplomatic visibility with India’s strategic posture, suggesting that Islamabad has managed to reposition itself in Western diplomatic circuits despite its internal and external challenges.

 

One salty user wrote: "This is not acceptable.”

 

Another reaction questioned India’s diplomatic positioning more directly: “Pakistan has been roped in, but not us??? We are busy promoting make believe propaganda ‘Dhurandhar’ while Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan aid de-escalation?!”

 

A more critical post linked India’s absence to its foreign policy choices: “The day PM Modi addressed the Israeli Parliament, India lost all chances to be a negotiator in the present conflict.”

 

Others linked the situation to broader geopolitical grievances, arguing that India should have been a natural stakeholder in such negotiations given its regional weight. 

 

Criticism was also directed at India’s diplomatic choices, with users claiming that New Delhi has lost opportunities to act as a mediator in major international conflicts.

 

Another reaction questioned India’s absence from the talks while other regional players are reportedly involved: “Where is India in all of this? Why don’t we have a seat at this high-stakes table?”

 

Some users framed the development as a reputational setback in global diplomacy: “India was accused of facilitator of war. Pakistan is now celebrated as facilitator of peace. This is what Modi’s stupid megalomaniac foreign policy has done to Gandhi-Nehru’s India.”

Another strongly worded reaction said: “If this is true, it amounts to rubbing salt into our wounds. While Modi was admiring his fake medal and the BJP was drooling over a make-believe ‘Dhurandhar,’ Pakistan was positioning itself at the diplomatic table during a critical global moment.”

 

Meanwhile, some users escalated their criticism further, describing Pakistan’s involvement as reputationally unacceptable, while others framed it as evidence of a shifting global order where regional intermediaries like Pakistan are being used as communication bridges between rival powers.

 

The reported engagement also follows recent diplomatic contacts involving Pakistani leadership, including Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir, as well as regional coordination efforts involving Iranian and US officials, including Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and parliamentary leadership such as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.