‘No double standards on terrorism’: Rajnath’s warning at SCO meet with Pakistan present

Rajnath Singh used the SCO meeting to make terrorism the central security message. He said terrorism harms more than victims’ families. It also damages peace, development, investment, commerce, and young people’s opportunities. His core demand was collective action against the whole system that allows terrorism to survive.

The timing gave the statement added significance because Pakistan’s deputy prime minister, Ishaq Dar, was present. Singh said terrorism cannot be justified and that countries providing money, support, or safe havens should face the same standard. He did not single out Pakistan in the quoted SCO remarks, but the setting made the warning especially pointed.

The message also matched Singh’s recent position that another terrorist attack originating from Pakistan would draw a stronger Indian response. He presented India as committed to dialogue and peaceful coexistence, but ready to act against threats. The broader implication was that regional cooperation must address enablers, not only attackers.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, or SCO, is a regional grouping that brings countries together for cooperation. Its work covers security concerns as well as economic, cultural, technological, and people-to-people links. The organisation matters because its members span a large part of Eurasia and include states with different political systems and interests.

The article describes an SCO Council of Heads of Government meeting in Dushanbe. Its agenda included culture, connectivity, the economy, innovation, investment, and people-to-people ties. Members were also reviewing the organisation’s financial and institutional functioning. Terrorism was a major political issue raised by India during the gathering.

India highlighted contributions through SCO mechanisms involving start-ups, digital public infrastructure, and cultural exchanges. These areas offer practical ways to build cooperation even when members disagree on security issues. The organisation’s value therefore lies in keeping dialogue and joint projects active across a diverse region.

The SCO currently has 10 member countries: China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, and Belarus. It is one of the largest regional groupings by territory and population. This scale gives its meetings importance for security, trade, connectivity, energy, and diplomatic coordination across Eurasia.

The organisation covers about 36 million square kilometres. That is commonly described as nearly 80% of the Eurasian landmass. Its members include major powers and several Central Asian states, creating both opportunities and tensions. The article specifically places the meeting in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, with India, Pakistan, Iran, and other members represented.

The article itself does not provide membership or area figures. The current count reflects Belarus joining as a full member in 2024. Because the group is so geographically broad, agreements often focus on practical cooperation, while sensitive security disputes require careful diplomacy.

Cross-border terrorism is especially sensitive in India-Pakistan relations because security disputes between the two countries have repeatedly involved violence and accusations of support for armed groups. India argues that attacks originating across the border threaten its people, territory, sovereignty, and national interests. Pakistan has rejected many Indian allegations, making the issue politically charged.

Terrorist financing matters because money can sustain recruitment, weapons, travel, propaganda, and operations. Safe havens matter because armed groups can plan or recover beyond the reach of the country being attacked. When one side believes another is enabling violence, ordinary diplomacy becomes harder and military escalation becomes more likely.

The article reflects this tension without resolving the competing claims. Singh said on October 15 that another terrorist act originating from Pakistan would bring an even stronger response. He also said India still supports dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution, but would not mistake peace for weakness.

When terrorism continues, businesses face greater danger and uncertainty. Investors may delay projects or move money elsewhere. Trade can slow because transport, workplaces, and markets become harder to secure. Governments may also divert resources from development toward emergency security, weakening broader economic progress.

The social effects can be equally serious. Repeated violence creates fear, deepens mistrust, and can radicalise parts of society. Schools, workplaces, and public life may be disrupted. Young people can lose access to education, jobs, and normal opportunities. Singh specifically said terrorism deprives youth of the opportunities they deserve.

The article presents these consequences as regional concerns, not only national ones. That is why Singh urged SCO members to confront those who finance, support, or shelter terrorists. If the wider ecosystem remains intact, stopping individual attackers may not prevent recruitment, funding, and future violence.

Intelligence-sharing helps countries identify planned attacks, recruiters, weapons routes, and travel patterns before violence occurs. Financial controls can freeze suspicious funds, expose donors, and make it harder to buy equipment or pay operatives. These tools address the support network behind terrorism, matching Singh’s call to dismantle the entire ecosystem.

Border security adds another layer. Joint watchlists, document checks, controlled crossings, and communication between agencies can reduce movement by militants and weapons. Diplomacy remains essential because countries must share information, settle disputes, and press one another to deny safe havens. These measures work best when evidence is exchanged through trusted channels.

Military action can sometimes remove an immediate threat, but it cannot by itself resolve radicalisation, financing, or political disputes. The article notes India’s military operations and its continued commitment to dialogue. A wider strategy would combine security operations with financial enforcement, regional coordination, and sustained diplomatic pressure.

International organisations must preserve cooperation even when members disagree about responsibility. In the SCO, decisions are generally reached through consensus, meaning members negotiate until all can accept the wording. This approach avoids a formal winner and loser, but it can produce broad statements rather than direct accusations or punitive decisions.

On terrorism, members may agree that attacks, financing, and safe havens are unacceptable while disagreeing about who enables them. They can still cooperate on information exchange, border controls, financial monitoring, and joint mechanisms. The article shows this tension: Singh demanded no double standards, while the meeting also pursued economic, cultural, and institutional cooperation.

Consensus protects the organisation’s ability to function across political divides. It can also limit how forcefully it addresses disputed allegations. Progress therefore depends on evidence, private diplomacy, and practical agreements that members can implement without settling every wider political dispute.