On 23 May, a month after the deadly Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir, the government of India announced a significant diplomatic outreach. As part of it, seven multi-party delegations were set to visit key global capitals aiming to present India's 'collective resolve' against terrorism.
In response to a Right To Information (RTI) query filed by The Quint, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has now confirmed that a total of Rs Thirteen Crore Eleven Lakh Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Forty Seven (13,11,16,647) was spent on the outreach.
The government, however, declined to disclose per-MP expenditure, cost break-ups, or outcome assessments for any of the delegations.
What the RTI Asked — And What Was Actually Answered
The RTI sought granular details:
per-MP expenditure
delegation-wise cost break-ups (travel, stay, other expenses)
spending patterns across delegations
A total of 15 questions were asked.
The MEA, however, only gave aggregate figure per delegation refusing to provide per-MP expenditure or give cost break-ups.
How the Rs 13.11 Crore Was Distributed
Based on the MEA document, the delegation-wise expenditure was as follows:
Ravi Shankar Prasad delegation (Europe): Rs 3.44 crore
Baijayant Panda delegation (West Asia & North Africa): Rs 1.35 crore
Shashi Tharoor delegation (US): Rs 2.08 crore
Kanimozhi Karunanidhi delegation (Europe): Rs 1.90 crore
Shrikant Eknath Shinde delegation (Africa): Rs 1.53 crore
Sanjay Kumar Jha delegation (East Asia): Rs 1.48 crore
Supriya Sule delegation (Africa & West Asia): Rs 1.31 crore
The Ravi Shankar Prasad–led delegation alone accounted for close to 30 percent of the total spend, travelling across France, Italy, Denmark, the UK, Belgium, Germany and EU institutions.
Diplomatic Optics vs Diplomatic Gains
Despite the scale of expenditure and geographical spread, the MEA’s RTI reply is silent on outcomes. No assessment is offered on whether the delegations achieved their stated objective: mobilising international political support after Operation Sindoor.
Publicly available diplomatic signals suggest a mixed outcome:
No joint statements endorsing India’s position were issued by countries visited.
No resolutions, parliamentary motions, or formal condemnations aligned with India emerged from host nations.
Several countries reiterated calls for restraint and dialogue, maintaining their earlier neutral positions.
Engagements largely remained courtesy meetings, photo-ops, and closed-door briefings.
Notably, even visits to traditionally friendly regions did not translate into explicit diplomatic backing in international forums.
In an earlier deep-dive report, The Quint analysed how effective the Indian government's outreach was based on three parameters—seniority of officials the delegations met, social media impact, and local media coverage. You can read it here.
The Transparency Gap
What stands out in the RTI response is not just the cost, but the absence of financial accountability:
Were MPs flying economy, business, or special charters?
Were hotel costs uniform across delegations?
Did longer itineraries justify higher spends?
The MEA chose not to disclose any of this.
Under the RTI Act, such expenditure — involving public funds and elected representatives — ordinarily falls squarely within the ambit of mandatory disclosure, unless exempted on national security or diplomatic sensitivity grounds. No such exemption has been cited here.