India’s Rhetorical Militarism and Pakistan’s Imperatives for Stability

South Asia was taken once again towards the brink of a very dangerous precipice in recent months. It is not an unexpected crisis or a skirmish that caused it, but rather the intentional exaggeration of rhetoric by the Indian leaders. A verbal battle, triggered by the statement of the Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi, who threatened to wipe Pakistan off the map, has not only revealed the volatility of the strategic thought at New Delhi but also disclosed the ideological undertones behind New Delhi’s foreign and security policies. It has further escalated to a level where even words can now instigate strategic instability. It is a new stage in the confrontation in South Asia as such belligerent rhetoric is voiced by the highest ranks of the Indian political and military leaders. Although relations between India and Pakistan have never been devoid of aggression, the words and tone of the latest utterances of threats of border crossing, first strike, and destruction are an indication of a deep loss of control. In the case of the nuclearized region, with the sphere of error being dangerously small, the militaristic discourse normalization bears serious consequences.

An analysis of the present stage of the behaviour of India is not possible without the identification of the ideological system that supports it. The domestic and foreign politics have been merged in one discourse of bigot supremacy and militarized nationalism under the Hindu nationalist rule of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Aggression is not only condoned in this political order, but it is also celebrated. The fact that the leadership has been calculating on the use of anti-Pakistan rhetoric as a means of gaining domestic backing, and escapism from economic and governance shocks, and projection of strength in the run-up to electoral periods, is the best move. As major state elections are on the verge of being held, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is replaying its old-time gimmick of creating hatred against Pakistan to rally its supporters. This is not new, in itself, but its militarized version, which is now deeply connected to the institutions of national security, is quite perilous in its own right. When the hyper-nationalism of political leaders is replicated by the military leaders, there is a deadly danger of confusing professional deterrence signalling with populist posturing.

The words about crossing the boundaries where needed or wiping Pakistan off the map are not mere figurative words used by the Indians to get them to the realm of reality. They portend a greater undermining of strategic restraint. India, which has a long history of its so-called declared No First Use (NFU) nuclear policy in the region, the current statements by Indian senior officials that it may alter depending on the situation have brought about uncertainties in the management of crisis. This ambiguity promotes worst-case thinking in Islamabad, which causes Pakistan to stock up on the worst-case scenario of pre-emptive attacks. History is full of examples. The Balakot, the post-Uri surgical strikes, the so-called Operation Sindoor all demonstrate a trend: symbolic military operations at the right time to have their payoff in the form of political dividends and not strategic imperative. The intention is not to change the field of battle but to form discourses of hegemonies. During every episode, it is shown that escalation is based not on military reasoning but rather on domestic politics.

It is impossible to discuss the dangerous normalization of Indian militarism without referring to the permissive international environment, which makes it possible. The United States and other Western powers, which are keen on developing India as a strategic balance to China, have always been blind to the aggression, democratic backsliding, and the abuse of human rights by New Delhi. Civil nuclear cooperation, transfer of defence technology, and inclusion in elite groupings such as the Quad has helped the West strengthen the sense of exceptionalism in India.

Such biased interaction is not without effects. The cost of aggression has been lowered by the major powers rewarding the aggressive behaviour of India with strategic alliances and diplomatic concessions. They do not say anything against the inflammatory language of Indian officials; in fact, they make it legitimate, indirectly sending a message to New Delhi that the militaristic conduct will not just go unpunished, but can be even followed by geopolitical rewards. The response of Pakistan to the provocations of India has been cautious yet sure. The words of its military leaders, especially the one that an erasure would be reciprocated, highlights a deterrence-based policy, but not dominance. Pakistan has offered dialogue, risk-reduction measures and Strategic Restraint Regime, nuclear and missile restraint, conventional arms control and dispute settlement on numerous occasions. Such suggestions do not indicate the lack of power, it is maturity, the realization that stability is impossible with unbridled militarism.

However, restraint should not be a source of complacency. Pakistan cannot risk taking its guard down, or lose focus on the fringe military engagements, be it in the Middle East or in any other region. The fulcrum of its security lies on the eastern border. Credible minimum deterrence, modernization of command and control, as well as reinforcement of crisis-communication mechanisms are essential to achieve stability in the face of the India’s rhetorical brinkmanship. Pakistan should intensify its diplomacy to expose India’s escalating behaviour and warn the world of the catastrophic fallout of a potential nuclear war, from climate collapse to humanitarian disaster. External powers should link India’s partnerships to responsible conduct and regional dialogue, as short-term China balancing cannot outweigh South Asia’s long-term stability. India’s militaristic rhetoric and ideological rigidity show its rejection of coexistence, turning national pride into provocation. Pakistan should remain resilient, strong yet restrained, upholding peace as a shared survival goal.