Modi’s New Doctrine: Unending War

Prakash Karat

IN the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Prime Minister Modi, in a public address on May 12, set out a new doctrine consisting of three guidelines. These must be analysed and understood as they have serious implications for the strategic and security policies of the country. They also portend major consequences for peace and stability in the South Asian region.

The three-point declaration is as follows:

Firstly, if there is a terrorist attack, a fitting reply will be given. Retaliatory action will be taken at every place from where the roots of terrorism emerge.

Secondly, India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail. India will strike precisely and decisively at terrorists’ hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.

Thirdly, India will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism.

This new doctrine was prefaced in the speech with the claim that by the afternoon of May 10, “we had destroyed the infrastructure of terrorism on a large scale. The terrorists were eliminated. We have destroyed the terror camps established in the heart of Pakistan. Therefore, when Pakistan approached and stated that it will not indulge in any sort of terror activities or military audacity further, India considered it.” He went on to say: “We have only suspended retaliatory action against Pakistan’s terror and military camps.”

STRATEGY IN A STRAITJACKET

The declaration that India will militarily retaliate against each and every terror attack will result in limiting India’s capacity to choose from a range of options. It will effectively hand over the initiative on the strategic response to a bunch of terrorists. Any group of terrorists can conduct a terrorist strike to invite a military response, thereby unleashing an armed conflict with Pakistan. As Ajay Sahni, a well-regarded security expert, commented: “Declarations that any future terror attack on Indian soil will be treated as an act of war, and that Operation Sindoor is the ‘new normal,’ are trapping the country into an escalatory military response to undefined levels of terrorism.” (Frontline, May 25, 2025)

The prime minister has subsequently embarked on a political campaign for the BJP and has repeatedly asserted that Operation Sindoor has not concluded – it has only been paused. A relevant question arises: If, as the prime minister has claimed in the speech, that the terrorist infrastructure and terrorist camps in Pakistan have been destroyed – a claim echoed by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh – what is the necessity of maintaining the posture of military strike that Operation Sindoor entails? The new doctrine is thus a recipe for unending war and puts India’s strategy in a straitjacket.

More and more, it is appearance, not reality, that seems to matter for the Modi regime. The boastful claim that terrorist infrastructure has been destroyed and over a hundred terrorists killed seems aimed at domestic consumption. Many security experts have pointed out that after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, there were repeated assertions by government leaders that a much bigger military response would be launched than the Balakot strike. It is farfetched to assume that terrorist elements were ensconced in the nine sites targeted, waiting for their military annihilation. At most, the operation signaled the resolve of the Indian government that it would not hesitate to hit targets inside Pakistan.

NUCLEAR REALITY

The second guideline – that India will not succumb to nuclear blackmail and will continue to conduct military strikes at terrorist hubs notwithstanding any nuclear threat – is also irresponsible rhetoric. When two nuclear-armed states get into a military conflict with the inevitable danger of escalation, the entire world becomes concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons being used. Even though the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Anil Chauhan, sought to allay fears in his interview in Singapore by stating that there is sufficient space below the nuclear threshold for conventional warfare, the fact remains that once an escalatory spiral begins, things can go out of control in a matter of hours. Modi’s talk about not submitting to nuclear blackmail seems motivated by the supposed American intervention to see that both sides back off. Though President Trump is known for exaggerated statements, a close reading of the moves made by the American side in talking with both Indian and Pakistani authorities, and the briefings by American sources, indicate that it was the threat of a nuclear response that led to a quick American intervention.

This highlights the danger of a flawed strategy that relies solely on a military response to fight terrorism.

The third point made in the speech – that India will not differentiate between a government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism – only strengthens the unidimensional emphasis on a military option. While there is no doubt that the Pakistani State supports and aids terrorist groups that are motivated by extremist Islamist ideologies, it would be a serious mistake to blur the distinction between the Pakistani State and the extremist-terror groups.

Conflating the Pakistani State with “masterminds of terrorism” bars the door to any future talks with the Pakistani government. If India’s position that problems with Pakistan have to be dealt with bilaterally is to be credible, then a doctrine that posits coercive action against Pakistan for every terrorist attack, undermines that very position. It only opens the way for external intervention.

KASHMIRI PEOPLE THE KEY

The key issue in fighting cross-border terrorism is how the people of Jammu and Kashmir are mobilised to oppose terrorist violence. The Pahalgam outrage was met with widespread opposition and protests by ordinary people. This happened despite the strong feelings of alienation and anger against the Modi government’s authoritarian actions of abrogating Article 370 and dismantling the state. Without the participation and involvement of the people, the task of countering terrorism cannot be carried forward in Jammu and Kashmir. This created the possibility of winning the people’s confidence by measures such as restoring statehood. The central government did the opposite – it cracked down with more repressive measures in the wake of the Pahalgam massacre. Thousands of people were rounded up and detained for suspected links with terrorists; houses were destroyed of those who had joined the militants without any concern for the families living there. Here again, the new Modi doctrine will only reinforce the present regime of State repression as the main instrument to counter terrorism without addressing the political steps so vitally needed to win the trust of the people of J&K.

This brings us to the correct way to counter cross-border terrorism. The government must take recourse to a range and combination of options – political, diplomatic, economic, and security measures – depending on the situation. Upgrading intelligence and counter-terrorism security systems must be prioritised. Lessons from the serious security lapse in Pahalgam must be learnt.

PAKISTAN NOT ISOLATED

Weeks after the Pahalgam terror attack, it has become clear that Pakistan has not been isolated politically and diplomatically at the international level. Not only has Pakistan received another tranche of the IMF bailout, it has also received World Bank and ADB funds. Moreover, Pakistan has been elected to serve in various terrorism-related and counter-terrorism committees in the United Nations.

The glaring fact is that none of the South Asian neighbours have expressed support for the military action conducted by India. While countries such as Nepal and Sri Lanka strongly condemned the Pahalgam terror attack, they signaled neutrality regarding the four-day India-Pakistan conflict.

India’s unilateral action – the suspention of the Indus Waters Treaty – has raised apprehensions in official and political circles in Sri Lanka. Questions have been raised about whether it is worthwhile to enter into agreements with India in the energy, infrastructure, and other sectors. The new doctrine, as set out, will only create further apprehensions among India’s neighbours.

NARROW POLITICAL GAINS

The spectacle of how Operation Sindoor is being utilised for the partisan political purposes of the BJP – and the cynical use made by the prime minister of a military operation conducted by the defence forces – has only reinforced the suspicion that the fight against terrorism is being used as a weapon to whip up jingoism, communal targeting, and to fulfill the political goal of communal consolidation.

The new doctrine seems more for domestic consumption to garner narrow political gains. But if it is ever put into practice it would amount to inflicting self-harm to India’s path of development and its international standing.

Enable GingerCannot connect to Ginger Check your internet connection
or reload the browserDisable GingerRephraseRephrase with Ginger (Ctrl+Alt+E)Edit in Ginger