The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, commemorated 11 years since he took his oath of office in 2014 and highlighted the achievements of his government in terms of development, by addressing the nation with a speech that was both celebratory of development achievements and directly implicated Pakistan. Modi claimed that “the people of Pakistan need to know their government and army are supporting terrorism and need to step up to halt the terrorism.” Although made at a politically symbolic moment, the statement also has considerable geopolitical meaning. This analysis assesses the facts, historical context, implications, and various readings of the Prime Minister’s comments.
Historical and Geopolitical Context
The conflict between India and Pakistan has deep historical roots and can be traced back to the partition of British India in 1947, and subsequently to the territorial disputes over Kashmir. Over the years, the two nations have fought several wars against one another and have also engaged in skirmishes, particularly along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, which have led to hundreds being killed and injured. Terrorism has been a constant factor in the conflict, with India constantly accusing Pakistan of supporting and sheltering terrorist groups that operate in Jammu and Kashmir and commit attacks in India.
The turning point was the 2008 Mumbai attacks, when 10 terrorists, trained and armed in Pakistan, killed 166 people. Investigators traced the attackers to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based militant group, among others. It then became evident by future events, such as the 2016 Uri attack, the suicide bombing in Pulwama in 2019, and the Balakot air strikes, and continually reinforced India’s narrative that Pakistan is supporting terrorism across its border.
Modi’s assertion indicates that the Pakistani government and army support terrorism corresponds to India’s position for a long time, and is also in part depending on international reports; the U.S. Department of State in its annual reports “Country Reports on Terrorism” has established that one of the main issues is that terrorist groups operate from and within Pakistan’s territory and are tolerated to varying degrees or altogether supported by various state institutions.
Many groups operating in Pakistan have been investigated and reviewed by various countries and organizations, but the Pakistani government continues to deny such allegations and lumps all of Pakistan’s terrorist entities as rogue groups or leftovers from previous hostage and blackmail policies. The Pakistan government has itself been a victim of terrorism since 2001, having sustained over 80,000 deaths from extremist violence and according to the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS). Pakistan has also been under intense scrutiny from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and has just recently been removed from its “grey list” after committing to take action against terror financing.
Credible evidence exists suggesting that Pakistan-based groups engage in terrorism, however, the complicity and extent of the Pakistani state as being part of terrorism remains debatable to seasoned international observers.
Domestic Circumstances and Political Timing
Modi’s statement occurred during a highly symbolic moment, the eighth anniversary of his government, and just ahead of the very final moments of India’s 2024 general election cycle phase. Sometimes the BJP has drawn upon national security narratives, particularly as it relates to Pakistan, when campaigning for elections. Therefore, we cannot dismiss that the statement serves a foreign policy goal, as well as a domestic political goal, and also mobilizes nationalist sentiment to shore up electoral support.
Additionally, the decision to include this remark with a list of development achievements (infrastructure expansion, digital services expansion, economic development, etc) could be an attempt to position Modi’s leadership as strong on security and development, both topical themes in his political messaging.
Implications
Modi’s comments may further coordinate a strained India-Pakistan diplomacy that has remained largely frozen, with limited dialogue between the nations since the Pulwama-Balakot crisis in 2019. Renewed claims against Pakistan may create pushback against backchannel diplomacy and intensify tensions along the LoC.
Domestically, the comments might aid Modi’s narrative for nationalist claim making and bolster capital politically but could also alienate certain sections of the Indian public who view India-Pakistan bilateral relations as a political issue and want to improve bilateral relations for economic or family reasons.
In Pakistan, Modi’s remarks may favor hardline elements and weaken moderates who support peace, stability, trade, and openness between their two neighbors. Furthermore, publicly framing the Pakistani population as needing to rise against their state could suggest Indian interference in domestic affairs.
While Modi’s remark is premised on what has been a historically supported concern about terrorism emanating from Pakistan, the media and policymakers ought to nevertheless contemplate pushing back against such public remarks, especially in politically charged environments. The absence of any fresh intelligence charges or displays of operational intel in that address implies that the speech may be more rhetorical than substantiated. A factual report is an attempt to separate political expediency claims from fact-based claims.
Pakistani perspectives, such as civil society groups and reformers, must be heard in any meaningful and balanced discourse. Most Pakistanis are strongly against terrorism and are critical of the overreach of their military within Pakistan. Bringing them on board only makes the discussion more comprehensive and steers clear of the homogeneity of a discussion.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remarks reflect longstanding Indian grievances against Pakistan regarding terrorism. While grounded in historical events and partially supported by international observations, the timing and framing suggest political motivations alongside strategic messaging. The broader implications for bilateral relations, regional stability, and domestic politics warrant scrutiny. In navigating such narratives, analysts and media need to remain objective, contextual, and inclusive of all relevant perspectives.
Keep reading QUESTIQA.in
