India’s War on Terror Reaches a Decisive Phase
“Those who shelter terrorism will pay a heavy price — even inside their own homes,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared from Adampur, marking a strategic shift in India’s counter-terror doctrine.
India’s recent anti-terror operation, codenamed Operation Sindoor, signals a pivotal moment in its longstanding struggle against cross-border terrorism. Though temporarily suspended, the operation’s success underscores India’s resolve to act decisively against terror, and suggests that similar operations may follow.
The operation and the accompanying rhetoric from Prime Minister Narendra Modi reflect a doctrinal shift in India’s approach — from strategic restraint to assertive deterrence. Modi’s clear warning, “India will enter their homes if needed,” was not mere political theatre, but a strong articulation of a new national security paradigm.
“India has made it clear: every future terrorist attack will be treated as an act of war,” says a senior official from the Ministry of Defence.
A Shift from Denunciation to Action
Operation Sindoor stands apart from previous engagements like the 2016 Surgical Strikes and the 2019 Balakot Airstrikes. It signals not just a retaliatory strike, but a forward-leaning strategy that denies safe havens to terrorist groups beyond India’s borders.
More than 100 terrorists were eliminated in the latest operation, many with links to Pakistan-based outfits. Reports suggest that even Pakistan Army personnel attended the funerals of those killed, highlighting the continuing nexus between state actors and non-state terrorists.
Pakistan’s denial of these connections rings hollow, especially in light of global intelligence and visual evidence presented at international forums, including the United Nations. India has, over the years, provided dossiers implicating Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar, and organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed — all operating with impunity in Pakistan.
From Restraint to Resolve
Historically, India’s responses to cross-border terrorism have been muted. As recently as 2014, Pakistan would orchestrate attacks while India registered diplomatic protests in Washington or New York. Even during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi returned over 90,000 Pakistani prisoners without extracting long-term strategic concessions — a decision often cited as a missed opportunity.
This strategic ambiguity has now given way to a firm, calibrated response posture. Be it Uri, Pulwama, or now Pahalgam — each attack has been met with proportionate and punitive retaliation.
“Water and blood cannot flow together,” Modi had warned in 2019 — a statement that has now taken operational form with India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty following the Pahalgam attack.
Revisiting the Indus Waters Treaty
In a striking departure from previous decades, India has decided to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. Though it had issued warnings in the past, this is the first time India has officially moved to review a water-sharing agreement considered sacrosanct for over six decades. The message is clear: India will no longer provide resources to a neighbour that supports bloodshed on its soil.
India has never blocked Pakistan’s rightful share under the treaty, despite being within its technical rights to do so. However, recent developments indicate that India is now prepared to leverage even diplomatic and resource tools to send stronger messages. Pakistan’s statement that any water diversion would amount to war is ironic, considering its role in enabling proxy warfare for decades.
Kashmir: The Diplomatic Battlefront
Pakistan has repeatedly sought third-party mediation on Kashmir, approaching the United States and the United Nations in an effort to internationalise the issue. However, India’s consistent stance has been that Kashmir is a bilateral matter, strictly between India and Pakistan.
“Tell us — when will you vacate Pakistan-occupied Kashmir?” Prime Minister Modi asked in a direct challenge to Islamabad.
This firm articulation aligns with the 1972 Simla Agreement, where both countries agreed to resolve their differences through bilateral dialogue. However, Pakistan has routinely violated this understanding — from Kargil intrusions to sponsoring UN debates. The Indian position, now more forcefully asserted than ever before, is that any future dialogue will be restricted to two issues: Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and terrorism.
Global Backing and Strategic Maturity
India’s international standing has strengthened remarkably. Strategic partners such as the United States, France, and Israel have backed India’s counter-terror operations. The rise of Indian-origin leaders in global institutions — such as Gita Gopinath at the IMF and Ajay Banga at the World Bank — has further bolstered India’s global influence.
“India today is not just a regional power, but a responsible global stakeholder,” remarked an EU diplomat recently.
Even as tensions simmer, Prime Minister Modi’s speech in Adampur balanced aggression with poise. “We do not seek war,” he said, “but if war is thrust upon us, we will respond decisively.” This statement encapsulated the twin principles of restraint and readiness — foundational to India’s strategic culture.
Beyond Borders: A Larger Civilisational Battle
India’s conflict with Pakistan is no longer restricted to LoC skirmishes or infiltration. The battle is being waged across four crucial dimensions: border security, water resources, territorial integrity, and global legitimacy. And in each of these arenas, India appears to have gained the upper hand.
The real battle, however, is not merely about Kashmir. It is a test of whether terrorism can be defeated through a combination of military resolve, diplomatic clarity, and international support.
India has answered that challenge. The world must now do the same.
Pull Quote: “Kashmir is not just a territorial issue. It is the frontline of the global fight against terrorism. India has drawn the red line — and expects the world to follow through.”
Operation Sindoor has made one truth abundantly clear — condemnation is no longer enough. The global community must unite in action, not just rhetoric, against terrorism. For too long, India has stood as a lone bulwark against cross-border extremism. That time must end.
As the world grapples with the new geopolitical order, the choice is no longer between peace and war. It is between passivity and principled resistance. The time for watching from the sidelines is over.
India has drawn its line. Will the world cross it — or stand beside it?