India redefines terrorism from Pakistan as war, marking a bold shift in national security strategy with global and regional implications.
India’s national security doctrine has undergone a seismic shift. In a decisive and assertive move, India has made it unequivocally clear that any act of terrorism emanating from across the border—especially from Pakistan—will now be regarded not as a criminal or insurgent act, but as an act of war. This transformation in strategic thought is not just a rhetorical escalation; it marks a tectonic realignment in the way India views and responds to asymmetric warfare. After years of restraint, New Delhi is now asserting a new paradigm: cross-border terrorism will be treated as war, and war will invite consequences.
This policy has not arisen in a vacuum. It is the result of a long and painful history—one that began not with Kargil or Pulwama, but much earlier, in the shadowy terrain of 1947–48. The so-called tribal invasion of Kashmir, orchestrated by Pakistan’s military establishment under the guise of tribal insurgents, was the first act of state-sponsored terrorism against India.
Disguised as local revolt, it was in fact a calculated campaign to seize territory and sow chaos. That attack set a precedent—a formula of deniable aggression, covert support, and proxy war—that Pakistan has refined over the decades.
From then on, terrorism from across the border became a systematic instrument of state policy. The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of Pakistan-sponsored insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, with armed groups like Hizbul Mujahideen and later Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed wreaking havoc. The bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993, the Parliament attack in 2001, the horror of 26/11 in 2008, the Uri base attack in 2016, and the Pulwama suicide bombing in 2019—all of these were not random acts of fanaticism. They were deliberate, planned acts of war. But for decades, India responded with diplomatic notes, evidence dossiers, and appeals to international conscience. That era is now over.
The 2016 surgical strikes marked the beginning of a new doctrine—swift, precise, and punitive action to neutralize terrorist launch pads inside Pakistan-occupied territory. The 2019 Balakot airstrikes took it further, crossing the Rubicon of fear and demonstrating that Indian retaliation would not be limited by geographical or psychological barriers. These responses weren’t ad hoc—they were early signs of a doctrinal evolution. Now, with terrorism officially being equated with war, that evolution is complete.
This new policy carries with it significant diplomatic and legal implications. Traditionally, terrorism has been treated as a law enforcement issue, where the perpetrators are fugitives to be apprehended and tried. By declaring it an act of war, India elevates such acts to the level of inter-state conflict. This opens the door to a range of legitimate responses under international law, including military action under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which allows for self-defence in the face of armed attack.
Equally important is the implicit recognition that these terrorists do not act alone—they are harboured, trained, and funded by Pakistan’s intelligence agencies and military establishments. This attribution of state responsibility is crucial. It not only undermines Pakistan’s facade of plausible deniability but also builds India’s case in global forums like the UN, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and the G20. It shifts the burden of proof and forces the international community to confront a fundamental question: how long can a state sponsor terrorism and still expect to be treated as a responsible actor on the world stage?
Strategically, this new doctrine imposes real costs on Pakistan. It compels the Pakistani military-jihadi complex to reassess the utility of using terrorist proxies as instruments of state policy. With every cross-border provocation now inviting the threat of military retaliation, the calculus of risk is dramatically altered. No longer is it a one-sided game of deniable violence and strategic ambiguity. India’s message is blunt but effective: the price of harbouring terrorists is rising—and will continue to rise.
India’s shift also has a ripple effect beyond South Asia. In an increasingly interconnected world, where hybrid warfare and grey-zone conflicts have become the norm, New Delhi’s policy helps establish a new global norm—that states cannot outsource violence to non-state actors without consequences. Countries like Israel, France, and even the United States have long walked a similar path, where terrorist attacks elicit military responses. India now joins them with clarity and resolve, setting a precedent for other nations grappling with the same threat.
That said, this path is not without its challenges. Raising the stakes increases the risk of escalation, especially in a volatile region with nuclear weapons on both sides. Strategic restraint must now be accompanied by tactical readiness. India will need to build international consensus, present watertight evidence of complicity, and manage the narrative with finesse. The doctrine’s success will depend not only on India’s will to act but also on its ability to sustain global support and avoid being cast as the aggressor.
There is also the internal dimension. Domestically, this doctrine sends a powerful signal—that India will no longer be a passive victim. It boosts public morale, unifies political consensus, and strengthens the confidence of the armed forces and intelligence agencies. It tells the Indian people that their nation will no longer allow its sovereignty to be violated with impunity.
At its heart, this doctrine is not just a strategic recalibration—it is a moral stance. It asserts that terrorism is not a tool of diplomacy; it is a crime against humanity and sovereignty. Any nation that uses it as leverage forfeits the privilege of peace. This is India’s new line in the sand.
In the final analysis, the shift from dossiers to deterrence, from tolerance to retaliation, marks a new chapter in India’s security policy. It is a declaration of self-respect and strategic maturity. To those who plot violence in the shadows, India now speaks in the language they understand: if you wage war by terror, prepare for war in return.
*Shri Siddhartha Dave is an alumnus of United Nations University, Tokyo, an eminent columnist and a former Lok Sabha Research Fellow. He writes on Foreign Affairs and National Security. Author can be reached at siddhartha.dave@gmail.com