Pakistan’s Propaganda at a Funeral Reflects Diplomatic Desperation

It is often said that circumstances may change, but human nature rarely does. Pakistan has once again reinforced this notion by demonstrating its inability to step away from cheap tactics and misinformation—even at a moment meant for solemn reflection.

The occasion was the funeral ceremony of former Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, where leaders from across the region and beyond gathered to offer condolences and pay their respects. It was a sombre, dignified event marked by grief and restraint. Yet Pakistan chose to turn even this moment into an opportunity for political distortion.

India was represented at the ceremony by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, while Pakistan was represented by National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq. As is customary at international events of this nature, dignitaries briefly acknowledged one another. Jaishankar and Sadiq happened to cross paths, exchanged a brief handshake, and moved on. Such interactions are standard diplomatic etiquette and reflect basic human courtesy, particularly at funerals or condolence meetings.

However, soon after images of the brief exchange surfaced, Pakistan’s information warfare machinery and social media troll networks went into overdrive. Multiple Pakistani media outlets and online handles began falsely claiming that the Indian foreign minister had “approached” the Pakistani speaker and initiated a bilateral interaction. The narrative was pushed as evidence that India was eager to engage Pakistan—or worse, that New Delhi was softening its stance.

Some went so far as to portray the moment as a “diplomatic victory” for Pakistan, alleging that Jaishankar had violated protocol or offered a symbolic gesture of approval. These claims were not only misleading but entirely fabricated.

The reality is far more mundane—and far more inconvenient for Pakistan’s narrative. According to eyewitnesses and diplomatic sources, the interaction occurred incidentally on the sidelines of the event, where seating and movement were tightly coordinated. Jaishankar was present alongside Bangladeshi leaders and other international dignitaries. Ayaz Sadiq happened to be in the same vicinity. The exchange was brief, unplanned, and purely ceremonial. There was no meeting, no conversation of substance, and certainly no bilateral engagement.

To portray a routine handshake as a personal outreach reflects Pakistan’s growing diplomatic isolation and desperation for relevance. Even at a funeral, Islamabad appears unable to resist politicisation. This tendency underscores the extent to which Pakistan’s foreign policy discourse has deteriorated, blurring the line between basic civility and deliberate misrepresentation.

Pakistan’s economic crisis, shrinking international influence, and diminishing global credibility have left its leadership eager to manufacture symbolic “wins” for domestic consumption. A fleeting moment of courtesy involving a senior Indian leader is thus inflated and sold as proof of recognition or respect. The truth, however, remains unchanged: India’s position on Pakistan—particularly regarding terrorism—has not shifted, nor has any dialogue been initiated.

A funeral is not a stage for political theatre or public relations manoeuvres. The priority should have been to honour the memory of Khaleda Zia and respect the sentiments of the Bangladeshi people. Instead, Pakistan chose to exploit the occasion for propaganda, diminishing the dignity of the event and disrespecting both the deceased and the host nation.

This is not an isolated incident. Whether at meetings of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the United Nations, or other multilateral forums, Pakistani media repeatedly spin routine proximity or courtesy between Indian and Pakistani officials into imagined diplomatic breakthroughs. The deliberate distortion of such moments reveals a pattern of insecurity and narrative manipulation.

In the end, no amount of misinformation can substitute for genuine diplomacy. Courtesy should not be mistaken for concession, and civility should not be confused with engagement. The facts remain clear, regardless of how aggressively they are misrepresented.