Terrorism has long been a defining challenge in the South Asian region, particularly for India. Since the late 1980s, Pakistan's state machinery—either through its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) or by supporting non-state actors—has systematically used terrorism as a tool of foreign policy, especially against India. From the Kargil War to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and countless other provocations, Pakistan has followed a doctrine of "death by a thousand cuts."

India, on the other hand, has historically responded with restraint, relying largely on diplomacy, international pressure, and limited military responses. But in today’s shifting global order, where realpolitik trumps idealism and national security demands assertive action, India must reconsider its doctrine. It is no longer just about defending borders—it is about defending national dignity, global standing, and regional influence.

1. Strategic Clarity: Terrorism as an Instrument of Pakistani State Policy

Pakistan’s use of terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Haqqani network has been documented by intelligence agencies globally. These groups do not act in isolation; they are sheltered, armed, and financed by Pakistani agencies to wage asymmetric warfare, particularly in Jammu & Kashmir.

This isn’t just a security concern—it’s a strategic attack on India’s sovereignty and democratic institutions. As long as Pakistan sees terrorism as a low-cost, high-reward strategy, it will continue to use it. Therefore, imposing significant geopolitical and economic costs becomes imperative.

2. The Global Shift Towards a Rules-Based Order

The global order is witnessing a reconfiguration. The United States’ strategic rivalry with China, Europe’s recalibration of alliances post-Brexit and Ukraine, and the Indo-Pacific emergence as a theatre of power play offer India a rare opportunity. As the West seeks reliable allies in Asia, India’s global standing has improved.

India must use this leverage to internationalise Pakistan’s duplicity: being an alleged “victim” of terrorism while simultaneously fostering it. At platforms like the G20, the SCO, BRICS, and even bilateral dialogues with the EU, US, Japan, and ASEAN nations, India should make Pakistan’s terror nexus a recurring agenda.

3. Economic and Diplomatic Isolation as a Strategic Tool

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) had placed Pakistan on its grey list for years due to its lack of enforcement against terror financing. India played a key role in mobilising global support for this. While Pakistan was removed from the list in 2022 under promises of reform, most of those promises remain unfulfilled.

India must now work to ensure that Pakistan's access to international financial instruments is conditional upon real, verifiable action against terror groups. This includes pushing for targeted sanctions on specific Pakistani individuals and institutions, limiting IMF bailouts, and curbing aid from organisations like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

India should also intensify bilateral campaigns with Gulf countries, many of whom have started distancing themselves from Pakistan, especially after India strengthened economic and strategic ties with UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

4. The Balakot Doctrine and the Rise of Counterforce Posturing

The 2019 Balakot airstrikes were a game-changer. For the first time, India crossed the Line of Control (LoC) and hit deep inside Pakistan, targeting terror camps. It was not just a tactical mission but a political message: India’s threshold had shifted.

This must not remain a one-off. A new doctrine of "proportionate retaliation"—not just against terror groups but their state sponsors—needs to be institutionalised. Covert operations, cyber-attacks, targeted economic sanctions, and disruption of Pakistan’s strategic assets must be part of India’s long-term playbook.

Such counterforce posturing also acts as deterrence. The cost-benefit ratio of sponsoring terrorism must be recalculated by Pakistan’s military elite. If the costs—economically, diplomatically, and militarily—begin to outweigh the perceived benefits, it will eventually force a policy rethink in Rawalpindi.

5. Kashmir, Narrative War, and the International Stage

Pakistan has consistently tried to internationalise Kashmir while justifying terrorism as a form of “resistance.” India must now go beyond defensive rebuttals. The narrative war needs to shift focus: expose Pakistan’s genocidal treatment of its minorities—Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis, Balochs, and Shias—and its colonial occupation of Balochistan and PoK.

International media, policy think tanks, and academia are key battlegrounds. India must invest in strategic communications—backed by data and testimonies—to counteract Pakistan's narrative. Global perception matters. When the world sees Pakistan not as a "victim state" but as the “epicentre of terrorism,” the diplomatic cost of its policy will skyrocket.

6. Strategic Balancing with China and the Afghanistan Factor

India’s geopolitical rivalry with China complicates things. Pakistan and China share a deep strategic partnership, cemented by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which passes through illegally occupied Indian territory. Any significant punitive action by India could trigger Chinese diplomatic counterpressure.

However, this also offers a lever. India must collaborate more closely with Western powers to put pressure on China for aiding and abetting Pakistan’s behaviour, directly or indirectly. Also, with the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan, India must brace for an increased terror threat emanating from the region.

At the same time, India must forge deeper defence and intelligence cooperation with Iran, the UAE, and Central Asian republics to counter Pakistan's strategic depth in Afghanistan.

7. Public Sentiment and Domestic Consolidation

Domestically, public sentiment in India overwhelmingly favours a tough stance against Pakistan. Every major terror incident has not only provoked emotional outrage but also intensified calls for justice and accountability. In a democracy, public sentiment must guide policy—especially when it concerns national security.

By making Pakistan pay through economic, diplomatic, and covert means, India sends a strong signal to its own citizens: that their lives and national dignity are not negotiable. It also galvanises the Indian state to be more agile and assertive on matters of strategic autonomy.

Conclusion: A Strategic Imperative, Not Just Retaliation

India is not merely reacting to isolated incidents of terrorism. It is responding to a decades-long policy of asymmetric warfare waged by a hostile neighbour. Making Pakistan pay is not about revenge—it is about deterrence, justice, and restoring strategic balance.

This doctrine must be multi-pronged: leveraging international platforms, recalibrating military posture, disrupting financial networks, winning the narrative war, and forming stronger alliances. In the evolving 21st-century world order, national security is not just about defending borders—it is about asserting influence, securing legitimacy, and punishing rogue behaviour.

For too long, Pakistan has played the double game. It is time India changes the rules.

Let me know if you want this rewritten for a specific audience—like YouTube narration, policy brief, or podcast episode—or if you'd like citations and footnotes added.