Modi’s Escalation Trap: The New Counterterrorism Doctrine and Its Risks
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has established a new counterterrorism strategy during his decade in power: any terrorist attack originating from Pakistan will trigger a strong military response from India. This policy, while aimed at bolstering national security, carries significant risks, both internationally and domestically.
The potential for escalation was evident during the recent conflict with Pakistan, which saw intense exchanges of fire between the two nations. The conflict, which lasted for four days, involved a broader geographical scope than had been seen in five decades. Domestically, Modi’s approach to counterterrorism is intertwined with his efforts to project himself as a strongman, a strategy that carries its own risks, as it relies on both stoking ultranationalism and maintaining control over it.
Earlier this month, the conflict intensified, with reports of heightened emotion among Modi’s supporters. Pro-government media outlets portrayed Pakistan as an archenemy, with some reports claiming that Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, had been destroyed. These reports, however, were not accurate. The conflict reached a critical point on May 10, when President Donald Trump announced a cease-fire between India and Pakistan on Truth Social. The American intervention came as a surprise, damaging Modi’s reputation as a global statesman.
Many of Modi’s followers felt that allowing Trump to broker a deal was a humiliation and a capitulation to a foreign power. As a result, New Delhi did not acknowledge the American intervention in its public statements, even as Pakistan hailed Trump’s role in ending the fighting. Right-wing social media accounts turned on the Modi government, attacking officials and even doxxing the daughter of the foreign secretary.
The necessity of any cease-fire was a surprise to Modi’s base, which had expected a swift victory. The conflict, however, revealed the limitations of India’s military strength and operational superiority. Pakistan downed at least two Indian jets and launched attacks that matched India’s capabilities. In the first week of May, India launched nine air strikes into Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Previous conflicts with Pakistan had allowed Modi to build a triumphalist narrative of strength, which resonated with his domestic audience. A 2019 air strike into Pakistan helped propel him to reelection. However, this latest conflict had a less satisfying conclusion: an uncertain military outcome and a diplomatic embarrassment for Modi’s nationalist base.
Trump’s intervention in the conflict further complicated the situation. His subsequent statements about mediating the Kashmir dispute drew criticism from India’s opposition, which compared Modi unfavorably with Indira Gandhi, who had won a decisive victory in the 1971 war with Pakistan. A newspaper owner in Gujarat was arrested for making the comparison.
Modi’s response to the conflict was marked by a bellicose tone, which contrasted with the need for measured restraint. In a prime-time speech, Modi claimed that India’s military offensive had brought Pakistan to its knees, leading to a cease-fire. He reaffirmed India’s position on retaliatory military action and warned that he had not abandoned the military operation. The following day, Modi visited an Indian air base, further emphasizing India’s military capabilities.
While the bellicosity of these speeches resonated with Modi’s domestic base, it also alienated India’s South Asian neighbors, who were concerned about the Modi regime’s tendency for bullying. The crisis highlighted how India’s national security has become increasingly tied to the personal cult of its leader. The result is a country that is seen as boastful about its growing power but also prickly about criticism of its human rights record.
Just hours before the cease-fire was implemented, the Indian government finalized its new counterterrorism doctrine, classifying cross-border terrorist violence as