Hello World, India Calling

In the evolving lexicon of global affairs, the letter ‘T’ often evokes trade, tariffs, or technology — terms that define our age of innovation and competition. But for India, ‘T’ continues to stand for a darker, harsher reality: terrorism.Every major India-Pakistan crisis in this century has been precipitated by an act of terrorism. It is simply so as our western neighbour — Pakistan — continues to employ terrorism not as an aberration, but as an enduring instrument of state policy.For Indians, terrorism is not a distant or abstract threat. While some states may treat terrorism as a law-and-order issue, India confronts a unique challenge: the sustained and systematic use of violent non-state actors by a state sponsor operating with impunity under the veil of state sovereignty.Successive Indian govts have explored every available avenue, in the hope that dialogue and joint efforts might yield deterrence .The 2004 joint statement, in which president General Musharraf assured PM Vajpayee that Pakistani soil would not be used to support terrorism, has long since lost relevance in the face of continued attacks.The India-Pakistan Anti-Terrorism Mechanism agreed to between Musharraf and PM Manmohan Singh in the wake of the Mumbai train blasts in 2006 didn’t yield any dividends.The copious legal documentation provided regarding Ajmal Kasab’s testimony did not lead to a single conviction, even though there was an acknowledgement that it was terrorists from Pakistan who were involved in planning, participating, financing and overseeing the 26/11 Mumbai attacks in 2008.Even when India agreed in 2016 to the visit of a Pakistani investigation team after the Pathankot airbase attack to collect evidence and interview witnesses and survivors Pakistan concluded that it was a ‘false flag’ attack staged by India to malign Pakistan.What, then, is India expected to do? Remain a passive victim? Watch innocents perish while the world debates evidentiary standards and attribution thresholds? No sovereign nation can tolerate a persistent external threat, especially when the evidence is manifest and recurring.India has now recalibrated its approach under PM Modi’s leadership. Op Sindoor, India’s cross-border counter-terror response to the Pahalgam massacre is more than a military response. It is a measured and deliberate response to the recent Pahalgam provocation, and marks more than a tactical shift — it signals a new doctrine.Modi has made it unequivocally clear: India draws no distinction between terrorists, their organisations, and their state sponsors. Terrorism will no longer be met with strategic restraint, but with strategic resolve.This statement of responsibility reflects the evolution of Indian statecraft. Modi govt has clarified a proactive security posture, linking national security with foreign policy and public diplomacy. India’s new stance is not about escalation. It seeks to enhance credibility and deterrence.What sets this moment apart is the unity it has inspired across the Indian political spectrum. In a rare convergence, parties with different ideologies have come together in a shared recognition that terrorism is a national threat, not a partisan issue. This coherence — unusual in any democracy — fortifies India’s internal strength and enhances its global credibility.Building on this coherence, the Indian govt is set to launch a bold public diplomacy outreach. Seven groups of Indian parliamentarians drawn from across the entire spectrum of the Indian polity have been tasked with engaging international stakeholders in a structured effort to communicate India’s position. This initiative conceptualised as a “whole-of-society” approach, is more than just consensus-building. It is symbolic of a pluralistic democracy that has reached an inflection point: India will no longer absorb terror passively.India does not seek privilege, nor does it seek exemption from global norms. It seeks what every sovereign state is entitled to: the right to protect its people. When this right is repeatedly challenged, a nation must act — not out of vengeance, but out of duty.The effort is not about revisiting past grievances but about shaping the future. It also marks India’s entry into preventive diplomacy of a different kind.Traditionally, preventive diplomacy refers to efforts aimed at preventing conflicts before they escalate. It is usually through early warning mechanisms, quiet dialogue, confidence-building, and early intervention. It is used to defuse crises before they erupt, and address humanitarian concerns before they become full-blown disasters. But the nature of India’s challenge is different.India’s innovation lies in expanding the concept of preventive diplomacy to this grey-zone domain. It is about preempting political apathy, international indifference, and diplomatic ambiguity before the next act of terror occurs. The goal is to shape global understanding and create conditions that raise the cost of inaction — for those who perpetrate, enable, or rationalise terror.This version of preventive diplomacy involves multiple layers: clear articulation of doctrine, international engagement, clear signalling, and broad public outreach. It is aimed not only at govts but also at civil society, think tanks, the media and global opinion-shapers.India recognises that waiting for the next attack is no longer acceptable. India is seizing the window of pause available between provocations. The world would do well to listen and take note. Else, it may be too late to counsel restraint should another attack take place.The writer served as India’s permanent representative to United Nations, and is member of one of the MPs’ groups