India’s Anti-Pakistan Lobbying in European Institutions
India and Pakistan have been locked in a long-standing geopolitical conflict that also has a significant diplomatic, political, and communications dimension within the European Union. One of the key objectives of India’s activities in Europe is to influence how EU institutions and Member States interpret Pakistani policy, particularly about the Kashmir conflict, counterterrorism, and regional security.
The “Indian Chronicles” Investigation
One of the most significant publicly documented cases relevant to India’s anti-Pakistan lobbying activities is the investigation conducted in 2019 and 2020 by EU DisinfoLab, a Brussels-based organisation specialising in research into disinformation. The researchers gave the name “Indian Chronicles” to what they described as an international network allegedly operated in the interests of the Indian government, which had spent years disseminating content favourable to India’s geopolitical interests while portraying Pakistan in a negative light.
According to the investigation report published in December 2020, the extensive network employed several mutually reinforcing methods.
Fake or misleading media outlets: Websites and publications that appeared to be affiliated with European institutions were operated in ways that could create the impression of legitimate European media organisations. According to the investigation, interconnected websites and media channels amplified content critical of Pakistan, creating the impression that particular positions were supported by numerous independent European and international sources.
The use of non-governmental organisations (NGOs): Researchers uncovered cases involving the revival or unauthorised use of the identities of defunct NGOs and other organisations.
The South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF), a Brussels-based think tank focusing on South Asian affairs, was among the organisations examined. According to the EU DisinfoLab report, its connections with the Srivastava Group lacked sufficient transparency, and it participated in activities favourable to Indian interests and in political communications critical of Pakistan.
The European Organization for Pakistani Minorities (EOPM) was also linked in the report to efforts that used minority-rights issues to advance positions favourable to India and critical of Pakistan.
Baluchistan House, an organisation focusing on the Baloch minority and the region of Balochistan, also featured in the report. According to EU DisinfoLab, the organisation was used within an international communications network critical of the Pakistani state’s policies.
The Women’s Economic and Social Think-Tank (WESTT) was associated with the preparation of questions and articles intended for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). According to the report, these channels helped introduce positions favourable to India and critical of Pakistan into EU political discourse.
Exploiting access to European politicians: This involved organising articles, events, and visits involving Members of the European Parliament.
Amplifying content: Materials published in Brussels were redistributed through other media outlets to reach wider audiences.
The report also linked India’s Srivastava Group and the Indian news agency ANI to various parts of the network.
India’s Anti-Pakistan Lobbying in the European Parliament
The activities described in the EU DisinfoLab report are particularly significant in four areas.
Researchers documented informal parliamentary groups, press events, and visits by MEPs that promoted issues favourable to India. They raised particular concerns about instances in which the participation of Indian government officials or delegations was presented as an official visit to the European Parliament.
One of the most prominent examples of alleged Indian government lobbying against Pakistan within the European Parliament was the visit by European parliamentarians to Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir in late October 2019. Approximately 23–27 MEPs travelled to the territory, just months after the Indian government revoked the region’s special constitutional status.
The visit was organised by Madi Sharma, head of the Brussels-based WESTT organisation, while funding was provided by the International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies (IINS). The EU DisinfoLab investigation linked IINS to the Srivastava Group, which it identified as a central actor in a network allegedly operating in ways that served Indian interests.
During the visit, the MEPs met Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indian officials, and military leaders. Several participants subsequently made favourable statements about India’s counterterrorism efforts.
The European Parliament emphasised that the trip was not an official parliamentary delegation and did not represent the institution’s position. The transparency of the arrangements was also called into question when British MEP Chris Davies was excluded from the visit after requesting an opportunity to speak to local residents without military supervision.
Parliamentary questions, policy papers, conferences, and statements by civil society organisations can all help place an issue on the political agenda. According to the report, the network also used these channels.
There have also been allegations that the Indian government paid European representatives to present India in a more favourable light. Any specific claim of payment to MEPs, however, requires separate documentary evidence identifying the individuals involved, the payments, and the purpose for which they were made.
EU–India Relations and Transparency in Lobbying
India has strengthened its relationship with the EU through closer economic ties and the EU–India free trade agreement. Various EU–India agreements and cooperation frameworks provide opportunities for India to pursue its interests directly through diplomatic and institutional channels.
At the same time, concerns have been raised about how the EU identifies and addresses covert lobbying and influence operations allegedly conducted on behalf of the Indian government. One area of concern is the scrutiny of groups that present themselves as NGOs but are alleged to have links to Indian intelligence services.
Organisations seeking to lobby EU institutions are generally expected to register in the EU Transparency Register when their activities fall within its scope. However, important limitations apply: certain activities carried out by diplomatic missions representing non-EU governments are not covered by the register in the same way as lobbying activities undertaken by private organisations and intermediaries. This creates a potential transparency gap that can complicate efforts to identify informal lobbying conducted in India’s interests.
Is India’s Anti-Pakistan Lobbying Still Continuing?
Unfortunately, EU DisinfoLab no longer appears to be monitoring India’s anti-Pakistan lobbying activities as a central focus of its work. On 7–8 October 2026, the organisation held its annual conference, #Disinfo2026, in Vilnius. The conference focused on artificial intelligence, and India’s alleged improper lobbying activities were not discussed.
This does not, however, demonstrate that the Indian government has abandoned such activities. Rather, it highlights the need to distinguish between changes in the focus of research organisations and changes in the activities they investigate.
A relevant example is the EU’s response following the terrorist attack in Pahalgam on 22 April 2025. The EU condemned the attack while calling on both sides to exercise restraint, reduce tensions, and engage in dialogue.
India sought to persuade the international community to hold Pakistan responsible for the attack. Nevertheless, the EU’s public statement called for restraint from both sides rather than simply adopting India’s position. This suggests that India’s efforts to influence the EU’s approach to Pakistan remain relevant, even if the methods and channels employed may have evolved.
In June 2026, The Economic Times reported that India had objected to a joint EU–Pakistan statement because it referred to Jammu and Kashmir. This illustrates that India’s efforts to advance its interests continue and that New Delhi remains sensitive to references by the EU to Kashmir as a bilateral or international issue.
The broader question, therefore, is not whether India engages in lobbying in Europe, as states routinely pursue their diplomatic interests, but whether particular activities are transparent, independently accountable, and free from deceptive practices intended to manipulate European political debate.
