Home News National Nirupama Rao: A Diplomat Who Consistently Misread India’s Enemies, And Has Now...

Nirupama Rao: A Diplomat Who Consistently Misread India’s Enemies, And Has Now Gone Full Woke With Her Diplomacy

By
The Commune
-

On 30 March 2026, as the US-Iran war continued to reshape West Asia and India navigated one of its most consequential geopolitical moments since Operation Sindoor, India’s former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao posted on X critiquing the Modi government’s posture on “strategic autonomy”.

The post itself did not mention Pakistan by name. But Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, watching from across the border, had seen enough.

Khar immediately quote-tweeted Rao’s post, saying she “felt deep nostalgia for such strategic clarity” and framed the West Asia crisis as one that India and Pakistan must face together as a region.

What happened next stunned a significant cross-section of India’s strategic community: rather than maintaining the distance expected of a former Foreign Secretary from a Pakistani politician with a well-documented record of anti-India provocations, Rao reshared Khar’s post and went further. She called for a women’s caucus between India and Pakistan, writing: “The women of India and Pakistan need to deploy our ingrained common sense and suggest ways forward in our relationship. We need a women’s caucus. Not to throw accusations against each other but to think calmly and sensibly about the future ahead. For the sake of our children. The women must speak.”

The backlash was swift and fierce across the political spectrum. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi shot back: “Stop this romanticism of getting into a dialogue with Pakistan. Who does one talk to, what authority do their government or elected representatives have? It is the army that wields the power and all they seek is to hurt India.”

On X, commentators pointed out that this was the same Hina Rabbani Khar who had called India a “rogue state” after Operation Sindoor and whose idea of “strategic clarity” included defending a UN-designated Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist at a Pakistan state funeral by saying “there are millions of Abdul Raufs in Pakistan”. Rao, rather than stepping back, responded to critics with further posts defending the women’s caucus idea, insisting it was “not a career move” but “an attempt to widen the space for reflection”.

This exchange did not emerge from a vacuum. It was the latest episode in a long-running pattern – one that stretches from Rao’s tenure as Foreign Secretary under the UPA government, through her public interventions during Operation Sindoor, to her broadside against the film Dhurandhar in March 2026.

What follows is a comprehensive account of who Nirupama Menon Rao is, what she has said and done at each critical juncture, and why this latest controversy has provoked the degree of anger it has.

Who Is Nirupama Menon Rao?

Nirupama Menon Rao (born 6 December 1950) is a retired Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer of the 1973 batch who reached the apex of India’s diplomatic establishment. She served as India’s Foreign Secretary from August 2009 to July 2011, becoming only the second woman in Indian history to hold that position — after Chokila Iyer. Over her distinguished career, she served as India’s Ambassador to China and the United States, High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, Deputy Chief of Mission in Moscow, and was the first woman spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs.

Her formative years in the MEA were defined by China expertise – she spent an unprecedented eight consecutive years (1984–1992) in the MEA’s East Asia Division, eventually becoming Joint Secretary and a key player in the normalisation of Sino-Indian ties. She later participated in the first three rounds of Special Representative border talks with China in 2003. In short, Rao represents the elite intellectual face of India’s old-school diplomatic establishment – one that prized “strategic patience,” composite dialogue, and Track II engagement with Pakistan as central pillars of its worldview.

She comes from a defence family background – her father was an Army officer, and she grew up living across different military stations, as is common with children raised in Indian defence households. Despite this, she has cultivated a public persona that is sharply critical of hawkish Indian foreign policy positions and frequently dismissive of nationalist voices, especially on social media.

Career Milestones And Pakistan Engagement

The 2001 Agra Summit and MEA Spokesperson Role
Rao’s tenure as MEA Spokesperson overlapped with a turbulent era: the failed Agra Summit (July 2001) between Vajpayee and Musharraf, and the December 2001 Parliament Attack. She gave live briefings during the subsequent military standoff between India and Pakistan – a period that shaped India’s security doctrine for years. Even then, the spokesperson’s office walked the tightrope of diplomatic language rather than unequivocal attribution of state responsibility to Pakistan for the attack.

China Summons Her At 2 AM (2008)

When Rao was India’s Ambassador to China during the UPA-era, she was summoned by the Chinese Foreign Ministry at the extraordinary hour of 2 AM on 21 March 2008 during the Tibet disturbances that threatened to disrupt the Olympic torch relay in Beijing. The Chinese handed over details of protests being organised by Tibetan groups in India and essentially demanded India act against them. The episode was widely reported as a humiliation – an Indian envoy being pulled out of bed in the middle of the night to receive a lecture from Beijing. The fallout was severe enough that India cancelled Commerce Minister Kamal Nath’s planned China visit in protest. It raised questions about India’s leverage with China and whether New Delhi was being treated as an equal partner.

The “Pakistan’s Attitude Has Changed” Statement (2011)

As Foreign Secretary, Rao gave a TV interview in July 2011, barely three years after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, claiming that Pakistan’s attitude towards terrorism had “changed“. This drew immediate outrage from security analysts and opposition politicians who pointed out that Pakistan had just sheltered Osama bin Laden (killed by the US in May 2011) and that the handlers of 26/11 were still walking free in Lahore. This remark was diplomatically naive at best, and dangerous at worst, softening India’s hard-earned post-26/11 stance towards Islamabad.

The Haqqani-Diwali Diplomatic Scandal (2011)

This is perhaps her most damaging controversy during her time as India’s Ambassador to the US. Just as Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, was embroiled in the infamous “Memogate” scandal, accused of secretly passing a memo to the Obama administration asking the US to rein in Pakistan’s military to avert a coup, Rao invited him to her Diwali reception in Washington.

The timing was staggering. Haqqani was under investigation by Pakistan’s Supreme Court for alleged treason. India’s own former foreign secretary who had been the public face of India’s outrage after 26/11 was seen hosting him and other South Asian envoys at a social gathering while this scandal was unravelling. The Telegraph India reported it bluntly: “Any outreach by Rao towards Pakistan has ramifications that go beyond any courtesy extended by an ordinary Indian ambassador to the US.” Was she covering for Haqqani’s activities by creating “a smokescreen” through the multi-ambassador gathering?

2011: The Hina Rabbani Khar-Hurriyat Scandal

The most revealing episode from Rao’s tenure as Foreign Secretary came in July 2011. When newly appointed Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar visited India for talks with External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna, she made a provocative detour – meeting separatist Hurriyat Conference leaders before sitting with the Indian EAM. This was a direct breach of the diplomatic framework India had insisted upon as a pre-condition for meaningful dialogue: that Pakistan not undermine India’s sovereignty claims on Jammu & Kashmir by engaging with separatists on Indian soil.

India’s response was formally conveyed by Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao herself, who “conveyed India’s concerns about the meeting in a frank and candid manner”. At the joint press conference with Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, Rao had to publicly highlight the divergent views between India and Pakistan – an embarrassment that resulted directly from her ministry’s failure to prevent the Hurriyat meeting in the first place. Pakistan’s Salman Bashir bluntly told the assembled press that “nothing more should be read into Hina Rabbani’s meeting” with the Hurriyat.

Crucially, it was also in June 2011, just weeks before the visit, that Rao had herself “called on Hina Rabbani Khar, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs” in Islamabad, laying the groundwork for the visit. This adds context to her long-standing personal familiarity with Khar, which would resurface dramatically in 2026.

Hina Rabbani was known to praise the terrorists.

WikiLeaks Cables Reveal Private Briefings to the US (2010–11)

When WikiLeaks released classified US Embassy cables in late 2010, several involved Nirupama Rao. As Foreign Secretary, she had held closed-door strategic dialogues with US Under Secretary Ellen Tauscher on sensitive topics including nuclear arms and India’s security posture – contents of which ended up in leaked cables. While Rao officially condemned the leaks, calling diplomatic communications “privileged” in nature, the Left parties in Parliament used the cables to accuse the UPA government with Rao as Foreign Secretary of being excessively close to American interests, citing US pressure on decisions like India’s votes against Iran at the IAEA. Rao’s public “disapproval” of WikiLeaks was itself a suspicious deflection, defending US diplomatic secrecy over India’s own right to transparency.

“Dialogue With Pak Is Necessary and a Must” – February 2011

In February 2011, barely 26 months after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people, Rao, serving as India’s Foreign Secretary, told reporters ahead of Foreign Secretary-level talks in Thimphu, Bhutan, that “dialogue between India and Pakistan is necessary and a must if we are to satisfactorily resolve the outstanding issues between our two countries.” The outrage was immediate. She was not framing engagement as a conditional offer, one that required Pakistan to first act against the 26/11 masterminds still living freely in Lahore, but as an unconditional strategic necessity. Hafiz Saeed was holding rallies in Pakistan. Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi was out on bail. Major Iqbal, the serving Pakistani Army officer named in India’s own dossiers as a 26/11 handler, had faced zero accountability. And yet India’s top diplomat was telling the world that talking to Pakistan was not a choice but a must. It was a statement that handed Islamabad dialogue without preconditions, at precisely the moment when preconditions were India’s only leverage.

Exporting Electricity To Pakistan – September 2012

One year later came a controversy that was even harder to explain. In September 2012, while serving as India’s Ambassador to the United States, Rao publicly tweeted that India was considering exporting 500 MW of electricity to Pakistan, a proposal she endorsed and actively defended. The timing was staggering. Just two months earlier, in July 2012, India had suffered the largest power blackout in world history – over 600 million Indians were left without electricity for days in a cascading grid failure that exposed the country’s chronic power deficit. Indian villages were dark. Indian hospitals were on generators. Indian factories had shut down. India did not have enough electricity for its own 1.2 billion people and its Ambassador to Washington was publicly floating the export of half a gigawatt to Pakistan. Pakistan’s own newspaper Dawn ran the headline approvingly: “India considering exporting electricity to Pakistan: Nirupama Rao” treating it as a diplomatic win for Islamabad.

“Turning India Into a Land Only for Hindus Goes Against Our Nation” (2017)

In an article for Firstpost, Rao wrote a piece with the incendiary headline “Turning India into a land only for Hindus goes against our nation”. She stated upfront, “I am a Hindu by birth and by enduring faith” but went on to argue against what she called right-wing majoritarianism. While liberals applauded it, large sections of the nationalist commentariat were furious: a former Foreign Secretary of India, a constitutional officer who had held the highest office in Indian diplomacy, was seen as openly intervening in a domestic political and Hindu-Muslim fault line and effectively lending her institutional credibility to an anti-government narrative. This was more an abuse of her post-retirement prestige.

The ICG Connection: A Soros-Funded Organisation, a Board Seat – 2024

Nirupama Rao has been a Trustee of the International Crisis Group (ICG) since 2024 and as of April 2026, she remains an active member of its board. This is not a peripheral or honorary affiliation. The ICG was officially established in 1995 with seed funding from George Soros, who continues to sit on its board as does his son Alexander Soros, Chair of the Open Society Foundations as confirmed by ICG’s own board page, which lists Rao, George Soros, and Alexander Soros as fellow trustees. Alexander Soros personally donated $500,000 to ICG for fellowships as recently as 2017. The Open Society Foundations has also been part of a $50 million ICG capital fundraising campaign alongside other donors. ICG’s own founding document states it was built with “generous support from financier and philanthropist George Soros.”

The organisation describes itself as committed to “preventing and resolving deadly conflict” through dialogue and negotiated settlements – a mandate that, in the South Asian context, has consistently translated into advocacy for India-Pakistan engagement, de-escalation, and dialogue frameworks. Indian strategic affairs analysts have long criticised ICG’s South Asia reports as being sympathetic to Pakistani framing on Kashmir and cross-border terrorism. And now, sitting on that same board, alongside the Soros father-son duo, is India’s former Foreign Secretary, who joined in 2024, just one year before she began her most aggressive phase of public advocacy for India-Pakistan peace talks, her criticism of Operation Sindoor-era India, her Dhurandhar op-ed, and ultimately, her “women’s caucus” proposal with Hina Rabbani Khar in March 2026.

The question is this: is Nirupama Rao’s sustained, consistent, post-retirement drumbeat for India-Pakistan dialogue simply the honest conviction of a seasoned diplomat – or is it, at least in part, shaped by her active membership of an institution that was built on Soros money, counts George Soros and Alexander Soros as fellow board members, and whose institutional mandate is to push conflicting parties toward dialogue regardless of ground realities? The answer may be both but the question itself is no longer a fringe conspiracy theory. It is a documented institutional reality, confirmed by ICG’s own website, Wikipedia, and NUS Institute of South Asian Studies’ faculty listing.

The Operation Sindoor-Media Criticism Connection (2025)

In the immediate aftermath of Operation Sindoor in May 2025, Rao also spoke to the Washington Post about the Indian media’s coverage of the conflict, describing TV channels as creating a “parallel reality” through “hyperism” and “triumphalism,” filling the information void left by the absence of official briefings. While media accountability is a legitimate concern, her framing which went on to be amplified by a foreign publication was criticised for inadvertently undermining India’s information posture during an ongoing conflict with Pakistan.

The Dhurandhar Controversy (March 2026) – Nirupama Rao Attacks the Film

In March 2026, as the film Dhurandhar, directed by Aditya Dhar released and sparked nationalist pride, Nirupama Rao took to X with a sharp critique that triggered a furious nationwide backlash. She wrote an elaborate article in a newspaper that the film would affect India-Pakistan relations.

Calling India’s Position a “Strategic Embarrassment” (2026)

In March 2026, when the US sank an Iranian warship in the Arabian Sea, effectively in India’s maritime backyard, Rao publicly called it a “strategic embarrassment for New Delhi”. While India’s discomfort is,acknowledged, the choice of phrase using the word embarrassment to describe India’s own government’s handling by a former Foreign Secretary should not so publicly shaming the nation’s strategic posture.

The “Aman Ki Asha” Intellectual Framework

Looking at Nirupama Rao’s entire arc, from her 2011 tolerance of Khar’s Hurriyat stunt, to her 2025 media criticism during Operation Sindoor, to her March 2026 women’s caucus proposal, a consistent ideological thread emerges:

Persistent minimisation of Pakistani state terrorism as the central organising reality of India-Pakistan relations

Framing Indian strategic assertiveness as a sign of democratic deterioration rather than legitimate security response

Romanticising bilateral engagement frameworks (Track II, women’s caucus, people-to-people) that have historically been used by Pakistan to deflect accountability for terrorism

Seeking or welcoming validation from Pakistani establishment figures particularly Hina Rabbani Khar while dismissing criticism from Indian nationalists

Praising Chinese realpolitik while simultaneously advocating for emotional and gender-based diplomacy with Pakistan

Questioning films, media, and public sentiment that reflect India’s changed strategic psychology post-Sindoor

This framework is precisely what critics call the “Aman Ki Asha” doctrine – a cosmopolitan, upper-class, English-language elite intellectual consensus that dominated India’s foreign policy establishment during the UPA era and continues to operate through retired diplomats, former bureaucrats, and liberal commentators on social media and in Western publications.

 

 

 

 

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR