The Modi doctrine encompasses a full-spectrum strategy: one that integrates military strength, economic pressure, diplomatic precision and a psychological reset of Bharat’s civilisational outlook toward its most committed adversary
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed office in 2014, he inherited not just a sluggish economy and fractured national psyche but also a legacy of foreign policy built on timidity and strategic ambiguity. India’s earlier dealings with Pakistan were marred by excessive restraint, internationalisation of internal matters, and repetitive cycles of dialogue and betrayal. From Nehru’s deference to global opinion during the Kashmir conflict to the Shimla Accord that squandered a hard-won military victory, India had long oscillated between peace overtures and diplomatic retreats.
But with Modi, that era ended. If the Congress era was marked by “Aman Ki Aasha”, Modi’s governance introduced “BrahMos ki Bhaasha”—a doctrine of unapologetic retaliation and surgical precision to any and every provocation or violation of peace. The Modi doctrine encompasses a full-spectrum strategy: one that integrates military strength, economic pressure, diplomatic precision, and, most importantly, a psychological reset in Bharat’s civilisational outlook toward its most committed adversary. This is not just a new security doctrine. It is a recalibration of India’s national will.
RETALIATION TO STRATEGIC CLARITY
Operation Sindoor was not merely a military strike—it was a declaration. India struck deep inside Pakistan, not on the periphery, not in disputed territories, but at the very heart of a nucleararmed adversary. In contrast to the limited responses of the past—be it the 2016 surgical strikes or the Balakot air raids in 2019—Sindoor was a comprehensive operation. It married kinetic military action with non-military tools: the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, diplomatic isolation, and information warfare. For the first time since 1960, India used water—a strategic lifeline for Pakistan’s economy and agriculture—as leverage, sending shockwaves across Islamabad’s elite. As many haters within India may not wish to admit, experts and analysts in the West took notice.
American defence expert John Spencer praised India’s mastery of “the physics of lethality,” while Austrian aviation analyst Tom Cooper hailed the strike as a “clear-cut victory.” Japanese strategic thinker Satoru Nagao also commended the restraint, calling the strike a “responsible and proper” response. These were not hollow endorsements. They were validations of a doctrine that had finally aligned India’s military capacity with its civilisational resolve. Critics who argued India should have gone further, even to the point of regime change, misunderstood the very foundation of the Modi Doctrine. The goal was not to destroy Pakistan or intervene in the internal affairs of the country—this is the Western way of dealing with problematic regimes.
For India, the objective was to establish a new red line: that any future attack on Indian soil would invite overwhelming, precision-based retaliation. Unlike in the past, India did not seek third-party mediation, nor did it issue hollow demarches. The message was unmistakable—terror will be treated as war.
STATECRAFT THROUGH STRENGTH
What enabled such a bold move was not just political will but indigenous capacity. The success of Operation Sindoor is also a story of industrial transformation and strategic foresight. Modi’s 2014 Make in India campaign was not just an economic slogan—it laid the groundwork for defence modernisation rooted in self-reliance. India’s use of domestically produced BrahMos missiles, Akashteer air defence systems, and loitering munitions was a moment of self-assertion. India no longer depended on foreign suppliers for retaliatory action. Pakistan’s defence infrastructure, built around ageing Chinese systems, simply did not stand a chance. Its radar grids failed, its interception capacity was paralysed, and its response was tepid.
The imbalance was stark, and India held complete tactical and technological superiority for the first time in decades. In global geopolitics, perception creates deterrence. Modi’s doctrine isn’t just about inflicting damage— it’s about building an image that deters. When Modi says, “terror and talks cannot go together,” it is not rhetoric. Instead, it is the policy. “Water and blood cannot flow together” is not a metaphor but a philosophically sound strategy. What Pakistan faces now is not just military defeat but systemic humiliation. The desperation to renegotiate the Indus Waters Treaty, once a roadblock to reasserting deterrence, has now evolved into a direct policy of India’s response to escalation. And the world watches as India, the world’s fastest growing economy, quietly asserts its primacy.
BHARAT’S CIVILISATIONAL AWAKENING
If Sindoor marks a milestone in India’s military playbook, it also signals a deeper transformation: a civilisational reawakening. India has long been at war with an entity that does not adhere to the conventional laws of peace and war. As Naipaul aptly wrote, Pakistan is a nation “beyond reason,” entailing a rage not just against India but against its own past. Therefore, it is not just a hostile neighbour to India but an ideological antithesis of Bharat. Pakistan’s jihadi doctrine, rooted in the Medina mindset, does not comprehend peace in the Westphalian sense. Venkat Dhulipala’s seminal work, “Creating a New Medina”, explains how Pakistan was conceived not merely as a refuge but a messianic Islamic state meant to revive the Islamic world order.
This stands in opposition to India’s secular, pluralistic ethos. The Modi Doctrine’s most vital contribution is to awaken that consciousness. To remind Bharat that battles cannot be won unless the nation is mentally and morally prepared to win them. History teaches us that ephemeral victories—like that of 1971—are squandered if not followed through. Imagine if Indira Gandhi had pressed Bhutto to cede Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in 1972.
Today, India would have strategic depth against both Pakistan and China. Modi’s approach makes clear that holding on to military gains is nonnegotiable. If the window opens again, Bharat must take bold steps—whether it’s reclaiming PoK or strategically isolating Bangladesh by slicing through its vulnerable Siliguri corridor. Territorial consolidation, not token victories, is the only way to conclusively settle such longdrawn conflict In a world where the enemies of Bharat no longer hide their intent, ambiguity is a liability. Pakistan is not China—it doesn’t mask its claws. It flaunts them. It thrives on instability, and its military sees its mullahs and jihadi terrorists as partners. Against such an adversary, Modi’s doctrine rectifies the strategic blunder of relying on the concept of middle path (madhyam marg) for decades. It is high time Bharat’s political class understood the real nature of this war, which goes beyond skirmishes.
Rather, this is a civilisational battle. And it will not end with a ceasefire. It will end only when one side disintegrates beyond recovery. As Pakistan celebrates its second Field Marshal while standing in economic quicksand and internal rifts, India must continue to build an unbreachable strategic advantage. The message now is simple and should be made loud for all to hear: this is a new India. Provocations will no longer be tolerated but punished.
Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU.