Rajnath Singh Declines SCO Defence Paper Citing 2 Critical Mentions: Pahalgam Attack and Balochistan Reference”

Rajnath Singh Declines SCO Defence Paper Citing 2 Critical Mentions: Pahalgam Attack and Balochistan Reference”

---

The Diplomatic Contention: Rajnath Singh’s Unprecedented Refusal at the SCO Defence Ministers’ Meeting

A Definitive Stand on Terrorism and Sovereignty at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

In an era of complex geopolitical realignments and escalating regional security concerns, multilateral forums serve as critical platforms for nations to articulate their foreign policy priorities and safeguard their national interests. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), established in 2001 with the stated aim of promoting regional stability through cooperation, has evolved into a significant Eurasian political, economic, and security bloc. It brings together diverse member states, including key global and regional powers such as China, Russia, India, and Pakistan. It was within this influential framework, at the recent SCO Defence Ministers’ meeting in Qingdao, China, that India’s Defence Minister, Rajnath Singh, made a diplomatic move of profound significance: his categorical refusal to sign a joint statement. This unprecedented decision was not merely a procedural abstention but a powerful articulation of India’s unwavering stance on cross-border terrorism and a resolute rejection of narratives perceived as undermining its sovereignty and integrity. This part will meticulously dissect the events leading to this diplomatic contention, examining the specific omissions and inclusions in the contentious document, and analyzing the immediate implications of India’s firm stand, which reverberates beyond the confines of the SCO summit.

The Genesis of Dissent: The Contentious Joint Statement and India’s Red Lines

The core of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s refusal to endorse the joint statement lay in two critical divergences between the proposed document’s content and India’s deeply held principles regarding national security and counter-terrorism. These were the glaring omission of the recent Pahalgam terror attack and the tacit inclusion of a reference to Balochistan, a province of Pakistan.

• The Unacknowledged Atrocity: The Pahalgam Terror Attack: The most immediate and critical trigger for India’s dissent was the conspicuous absence of any mention of the Pahalgam terror attack in the draft joint statement. On April 22, 2025, the serene tourist destination of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir was tragically transformed into a site of horrific violence. Twenty-six innocent lives were claimed in a brutal act of terrorism, where victims were reportedly profiled based on their religious identity before being summarily executed. The Resistance Front (TRF), a known proxy of the UN-designated global terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed responsibility for this heinous act. The pattern of the Pahalgam attack, characterized by targeting civilians based on religious profiling, bore striking resemblances to previous LeT-orchestrated terror incidents on Indian soil. For India, a nation that has borne the brunt of cross-border terrorism for decades, the non-acknowledgement of such a significant and recent terrorist act by a multilateral security organization was unacceptable. It directly contravened India’s consistent calls for universal condemnation of all forms of terrorism, irrespective of their motivation or perpetrators, and signalled a selective approach to acknowledging terror incidents.
• The Unwarranted Insertion: The Balochistan Reference: Compounding the omission of Pahalgam was the inclusion of a reference to Balochistan within the joint document. While the precise wording of this reference was not publicly detailed, its presence was understood by New Delhi as a tacit endorsement of Pakistan’s long-standing, yet consistently refuted, allegations of Indian involvement in fomenting unrest within the region. Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province by area, has a complex history of insurgency and ethno-nationalist movements. Pakistan has routinely accused India of supporting these separatist elements, often without presenting credible evidence. India, on its part, has consistently and vehemently trashed these allegations, asserting that Islamabad must instead “look within and stop backing terror instead of making wild allegations” and address its own internal governance issues. The inclusion of Balochistan in an SCO document, particularly when juxtaposed with the exclusion of a demonstrable terrorist attack on Indian soil, was perceived by India as a clear attempt to legitimize Pakistan’s unsubstantiated claims and divert attention from its own role in sponsoring cross-border terrorism. This asymmetric framing directly challenged India’s narrative and undermined its diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan on the issue of terrorism.
• The Geopolitical Undercurrents: China’s Role as Chair: The diplomatic standoff was further exacerbated by the context of the SCO meeting, with China holding the Chairmanship. China’s historically close ties with Pakistan, often described as an “all-weather strategic cooperative partnership,” meant that Beijing’s position could significantly influence the drafting and finalization of joint statements. Defence Ministry sources indicated that Pahalgam’s exclusion from the document appeared to have been done at Pakistan’s behest, with China’s tacit support or active facilitation. This dynamic highlighted the complexities within the SCO, where bilateral allegiances can, at times, override collective principles, particularly concerning sensitive issues like terrorism and territorial integrity. India’s refusal to sign, therefore, was also a message to China regarding its perceived impartiality and its role in allowing such a skewed narrative to dominate a multilateral forum.

India’s Unwavering Stance: Zero Tolerance for Terrorism and Double Standards

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s refusal to sign the joint statement was a decisive manifestation of India’s hardened and unambiguous counter-terrorism policy, characterized by “zero tolerance for terrorism” and an emphatic rejection of “double standards.” This policy has been articulated consistently on various international platforms and has been backed by concrete actions, notably in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor.

• Addressing the SCO Summit: A Direct Challenge to State Sponsors of Terror: Even before the refusal to sign the document, Rajnath Singh’s address at the SCO Defence Ministers’ summit unequivocally called upon member states to unite against terrorism for collective safety and security. He underscored that “peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups.” His speech contained a thinly veiled, yet potent, swipe at Pakistan, asserting that “it is imperative that those who sponsor, nurture and utilise terrorism for their narrow and selfish ends must bear the consequences. Some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of policy and provide shelter to terrorists. There should be no place for such double standards. SCO should not hesitate to criticise such nations.” This public declaration set the tone for India’s firm position, making it clear that New Delhi would not compromise on its principles, even in a forum where Pakistan is a fellow member.
• The Pahalgam Attack as a Casus Belli for Assertive Defense: In his address, Mr. Singh specifically referenced the Pahalgam terror attack, detailing its gruesome nature, including the religious profiling of victims. He emphasized that the attack’s pattern aligned with the modus operandi of LeT, an organization with a long history of cross-border terrorism against India. Crucially, he articulated India’s right to self-defense against terrorism, stating that India had “exercised its right to defend against terrorism and pre-empt as well as deter further cross-border attacks.” This statement, coupled with the explicit mention that “epicentres of terrorism are no longer safe and we will not hesitate to target them,” conveyed a clear message of India’s proactive and assertive counter-terrorism posture. This directly alluded to Operation Sindoor, a significant military action undertaken by India to neutralize terrorist infrastructure across the Line of Control, demonstrating its commitment to holding perpetrators, organizers, financiers, and sponsors of terror accountable and bringing them to justice.
• Consistency with Global Messaging Post-Operation Sindoor: The Defence Minister’s refusal to sign the joint statement was not an isolated incident but a consistent manifestation of India’s global messaging campaign launched in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Following this operation, India dispatched eight delegations abroad to articulate its firm stance against terrorism and detail its future strategy for tackling this menace. This coordinated diplomatic outreach aimed to garner international understanding and support for India’s zero-tolerance policy and its right to pre-emptive self-defense. The stand taken at the SCO meeting, therefore, aligned perfectly with this broader strategic communication, reinforcing India’s resolve on a key international platform.

Immediate Repercussions and Future Implications

The Defence Minister’s refusal to sign the joint statement at the SCO Defence Ministers’ meeting, a rare occurrence in multilateral diplomacy, carried immediate and significant repercussions, while also setting potential precedents for future engagements.

• Unilateral Disassociation from a Compromised Narrative: By refusing to sign, India successfully disassociated itself from a document that, in its view, either downplayed a significant terror attack on its soil or tacitly legitimized baseless accusations against it. This ensured that India’s “strong position on terror” was not diluted or compromised within the SCO framework.
• A Stern Message to Adversaries and Allies: The move sent a clear and unequivocal message to Pakistan, underlining India’s unwavering resolve against cross-border terrorism and its rejection of any attempts to equate legitimate counter-terrorism actions with state-sponsored insurgency. It also served as a subtle, yet firm, message to China, indicating that India would not accede to formulations that undermine its core national security interests, even in forums where Beijing holds significant sway.
• Reinforcing the “No Double Standards” Principle: India’s stand at the SCO meeting reinforced its long-held principle that terrorism cannot be compartmentalized or selectively condemned. It reiterated the call for the international community to adopt a unified approach against terrorism, without differentiating between “good” and “bad” terrorists or ignoring attacks based on political expediency.
• Potential for Future Multilateral Engagements: While India is a committed member of the SCO, this incident highlights the potential for friction within the bloc when core national interests, particularly on sensitive issues like terrorism, are at loggerheads. It signals that India is prepared to take independent positions, even if it means diverging from joint statements, to uphold its principles. This might prompt other member states to be more circumspect in future drafting processes or force a more balanced approach to sensitive geopolitical issues within the SCO.

A Diplomatic Imperative for India’s National Security

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s refusal to sign the SCO Defence Ministers’ joint statement in Qingdao was a calibrated and decisive diplomatic action. It underscored India’s unwavering commitment to a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism, its resolute rejection of double standards, and its firm stance against any attempts to legitimize baseless allegations aimed at undermining its sovereignty. By prioritizing the recognition of the Pahalgam terror attack and vehemently opposing the Balochistan reference, India sent a stern message to its neighbours and the broader international community that its national security and counter-terrorism policies are non-negotiable. This event, while potentially creating ripples within the SCO, ultimately served to reinforce India’s independent and assertive foreign policy posture, demonstrating its resolve to protect its interests and hold perpetrators of terrorism accountable on the global stage, a stance now globally recognized in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. The implications of this stand will likely shape India’s future engagements within the SCO and influence its bilateral interactions, particularly with those who seek to undermine its fight against terrorism.

India’s Evolving Counter-Terrorism Doctrine: A Historical and Geopolitical Context

The Enduring Scourge of Terrorism in India’s Strategic Calculus

For India, the menace of terrorism is not a recent phenomenon but an enduring and deeply entrenched challenge that has profoundly shaped its strategic calculus and foreign policy. Unlike many Western nations that experienced large-scale terrorism primarily after 9/11, India has grappled with various forms of insurgency and cross-border terrorism since its independence, often stemming from complex ethno-religious conflicts and state-sponsored proxy warfare. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s uncompromising stance at the SCO meeting, particularly concerning the Pahalgam attack and the Balochistan reference, is not an isolated incident but a clear manifestation of an evolving and increasingly assertive Indian counter-terrorism doctrine. This part will delve into the historical trajectory of India’s fight against terrorism, examine the persistent nature of cross-border terrorism primarily emanating from Pakistan, analyze China’s often-ambiguous role in counter-terrorism discourse within multilateral forums like the SCO, and ultimately delineate the strategic shifts that now define India’s proactive and “zero tolerance” approach.

A Legacy of Lived Experience: The Evolution of India’s Counter-Terrorism Policy

India’s journey in combating terrorism has been marked by a transition from a largely reactive stance to a more proactive and punitive one, particularly in the 21st century. This evolution has been necessitated by a series of devastating attacks and a growing realization that traditional diplomatic approaches alone are insufficient against state-sponsored non-state actors.

• Early Challenges and Legal Frameworks: In its initial decades, India primarily dealt with internal insurgencies and secessionist movements, particularly in regions like Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and the Northeast. The focus was largely on internal security and law enforcement. Landmark terror incidents, such as the 1993 Mumbai bombings and the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, served as pivotal moments, highlighting the transnational nature of the threat and the increasing sophistication of terrorist networks. In response, India began to formalize its counter-terrorism legal framework, leading to acts like the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), later superseded by amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), aiming for a “zero tolerance” approach.
• The Post-2001 Shift: A Focus on “Zero Tolerance”: The period following the 9/11 attacks saw a global re-calibration of counter-terrorism strategies, which resonated in India. New Delhi consistently advocated for a comprehensive international convention on terrorism (CCIT) at the United Nations, emphasizing that “no act of terrorism can be justified on any grounds whatsoever.” The underlying ideology of India’s CT policy since then has been “Zero Tolerance with Terrorism,” leading to a “securitisation” of its foreign policy where national security is paramount. This has meant prioritizing intelligence gathering, enhancing law enforcement capabilities, and strengthening international cooperation.
• From Strategic Restraint to Proactive Deterrence: For a long period, India adhered to a doctrine of strategic restraint, emphasizing diplomatic and political responses to cross-border provocations, even in the face of significant terror attacks. However, major incidents like the 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11) and later the Uri attack (2016) and Pulwama attack (2019) served as catalysts for a decisive shift. The perception grew that Pakistan’s continued use of proxy actors, often operating under nuclear cover, necessitated a more robust and overt response. This paved the way for “deterrence by punishment,” moving beyond passive defense to active measures designed to inflict costs on perpetrators and their sponsors.
• The New Security Doctrine: Post-Operation Sindoor: Operation Sindoor, launched in the early hours of May 7, 2025, in response to the Pahalgam terror attack, marks a significant watershed in India’s counter-terrorism doctrine. As articulated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi following the successful execution of Operation Sindoor, India’s new security doctrine rests on three core pillars:
  1. Response on India’s Own Terms: India will dictate the terms and manner of its response to terrorism, moving away from past constraints.
  2. No Deterrence by Nuclear Threats: Nuclear threats from adversaries will not deter India from exercising its right to self-defense. This signifies a sharp shift from previous doctrines of strategic restraint in a nuclear environment.
  3. No Distinction Between Terrorists and State Sponsors: India will no longer differentiate between terrorists, their leaders, and the states that provide them sanctuary or support. This establishes that state-sponsored terrorism will be treated as a state-sanctioned act of war perpetrated through proxy actors by a complicit state.

This new doctrine emphasizes a lowered threshold for response, increased military and economic costs for supporting terrorism (e.g., the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, closure of the Attari-Wagah border, suspension of bilateral trade, and visa revocations for Pakistani nationals), and a strategic de-capacitation of adversary airbases. Operation Sindoor demonstrated India’s capability to strike precisely and decisively at terror hideouts, including those deep within Pakistan’s mainland, thus redefining conflict dynamics in South Asia and sending a clear signal of intent to retaliate against cross-border terrorism.

The Persistent Challenge: Cross-Border Terrorism from Pakistan

At the heart of India’s counter-terrorism narrative and its disputes within forums like the SCO lies the persistent issue of cross-border terrorism, overwhelmingly linked to entities operating from Pakistani soil. This has been the primary driver of India-Pakistan conflict dynamics, excluding the 1971 war.

• Historical Pattern of Proxy Warfare: Since the late 1980s, India has consistently accused Pakistan of financing, training, arming, and sheltering various armed groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of India. Organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen are prominent examples, many of which are designated terrorist entities by international bodies. Major attacks, including the 2001 Parliament attack, the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, have been traced back to Pakistan-based groups, with evidence of state complicity frequently presented by India.
• Pakistan’s Denial and Counter-Allegations: Pakistan consistently denies any state involvement in cross-border terrorism, often dismissing India’s accusations as attempts to deflect from its internal issues in Kashmir. Instead, Pakistan frequently levels counter-allegations of Indian interference in its own internal affairs, particularly in Balochistan. The inclusion of Balochistan in the SCO document, as seen in Part 1, is a direct manifestation of this counter-narrative, which India views as baseless and designed to legitimize proxy activities.
• The “Terror and Talks Don’t Go Together” Doctrine: India’s diplomatic strategy has increasingly hinged on the principle that “terror and talks cannot go together.” This means New Delhi refuses to engage in a comprehensive dialogue with Islamabad until tangible and verifiable steps are taken by Pakistan to dismantle terrorist infrastructure on its soil and end cross-border terrorism. This consistent diplomatic pressure aims to isolate Pakistan globally on the issue of terrorism and force it to address the problem domestically.

China’s Nuanced Position: A Balancing Act in Counter-Terrorism Forums

China, as a key member of the SCO and an “all-weather ally” of Pakistan, occupies a complex and often ambiguous position in the global counter-terrorism discourse, particularly concerning the India-Pakistan dynamic. While China condemns terrorism in principle, its actions and statements within multilateral forums have frequently been perceived by India as undermining its counter-terrorism efforts.

• Condemnation in Principle: The SCO’s stated objectives include countering the “three evil forces” of terrorism, separatism, and extremism, and it has established the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) to coordinate efforts. China, like other SCO members, reiterates its fundamental position of condemning terrorism “in all its forms and manifestations, regardless of its motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.” It advocates for strengthening collective international cooperation mechanisms through multilateral efforts, often emphasizing the central role of the United Nations.
• Selective Application and Bilateral Considerations: Despite these overarching principles, China’s actions often appear to be influenced by its strategic partnership with Pakistan. This has manifested in several ways:
  • Blocking UN Designations: Historically, China has used its veto power at the UN Security Council to block India’s (and other nations’) attempts to designate Pakistan-based terrorist leaders, such as Masood Azhar (JeM chief) and Hafiz Saeed (LeT founder), as global terrorists under the UNSC 1267 sanctions regime. While it has occasionally relented under intense international pressure, these instances have created significant friction with India and raised questions about China’s genuine commitment to a non-discriminatory approach to counter-terrorism.
  • Softening Language in Joint Statements: As observed in the Qingdao incident, China, as a chair or influential member, has a history of allowing language in joint statements that is perceived by India as “soft” on terror, or which introduces elements favorable to Pakistan’s narrative, such as the Balochistan reference. This reflects a balancing act where China tries to maintain its strategic ties with Pakistan while upholding its stated commitment to counter-terrorism.
  • Focus on Xinjiang Separatism: China’s counter-terrorism narrative often strongly emphasizes its own concerns regarding separatism and extremism, particularly in its Xinjiang province, which it links to transnational terrorist groups. While this is a legitimate concern for Beijing, critics argue that this focus can sometimes overshadow or selectively apply counter-terrorism principles, especially when it comes to groups operating outside its immediate sphere of influence, or those with indirect links to its allies.

SCO’s Counter-Terrorism Mechanisms and Effectiveness

The SCO has institutional mechanisms for counter-terrorism, primarily through its Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS), headquartered in Tashkent. RATS is designed to facilitate coordination and cooperation among the special services of member states in combating terrorism, separatism, and extremism.

• RATS’ Mandate and Activities: RATS coordinates information exchange, intelligence sharing, and joint anti-terrorism exercises among member states. Between 2011 and 2015, for instance, RATS coordination reportedly led to the prevention of 20 terrorist attacks, averted 650 crimes of terrorist and extremist nature, and neutralized hundreds of terrorist training camps. It also aims to counter radicalization, particularly among youth, and strengthen collaboration against propaganda.
• Challenges and Limitations: Despite these efforts, the effectiveness of RATS and SCO’s overall counter-terrorism framework faces limitations:
  • Divergent Definitions and Priorities: Member states, including India, Pakistan, and China, often have divergent definitions of terrorism and prioritize threats differently, leading to an inability to forge a truly unified stance on specific groups or state sponsors.
  • Bilateral Disputes Impact on Multilateral Cooperation: The deep-seated bilateral disputes, particularly between India and Pakistan, frequently spill over into multilateral forums, hindering effective cooperation. As seen in the Qingdao incident, a joint statement on a seemingly common issue like counter-terrorism can be derailed by nationalistic narratives and specific political grievances.
  • Lack of Binding Mechanisms: While SCO has conventions against terrorism, the implementation mechanisms and their binding nature can be weak, often relying on the voluntary cooperation of member states. This allows for selective enforcement or interpretation of anti-terrorism principles.
  • Strategic Distrust: Despite the common goal of regional stability, underlying strategic distrust among some members, particularly concerning issues of territorial integrity and regional influence, can impede robust intelligence sharing and coordinated action against all forms of terrorism.

India’s Resolute Path Amidst Complexities

India’s decades-long struggle against terrorism, particularly cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan, has profoundly shaped its strategic outlook. The evolution from strategic restraint to a proactive and assertive “zero tolerance” doctrine, culminating in actions like Operation Sindoor, underscores India’s unwavering resolve. Rajnath Singh’s firm stance at the SCO Defence Ministers’ meeting was a direct manifestation of this evolved doctrine, challenging the selective condemnation of terrorism and the manipulation of multilateral narratives to shield perpetrators or their sponsors. While the SCO provides a platform for counter-terrorism cooperation, its effectiveness is often hampered by the divergent geopolitical interests and bilateral allegiances of its key members, most notably China’s nuanced position influenced by its partnership with Pakistan. India’s future engagements in such forums will undoubtedly continue to prioritize its national security imperatives, demanding a principled and non-discriminatory approach to the global fight against terrorism, even if it means standing alone to uphold its core beliefs.

Geopolitical Contours: India’s Assertive Diplomacy and its Global Repercussions

From Regional Assertion to Global Positioning

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s resolute refusal to endorse the SCO joint statement, as detailed in Part 1, and the historical context of India’s counter-terrorism doctrine, as explored in Part 2, illuminate a significant shift in India’s diplomatic posture. This shift is characterized by an increasing assertiveness and an unambiguous prioritization of national security interests, even when it entails challenging the narratives of powerful geopolitical actors within multilateral forums. This part will delve into the broader geopolitical implications of this assertive diplomacy, analyzing how India’s firm stance on terrorism impacts its relationships with major global powers, its role in the evolving Asian security architecture, and its ongoing quest for strategic autonomy in a multipolar world. The objective is to understand how a seemingly specific incident at a regional summit can resonate across the global geopolitical landscape, reshaping perceptions and alliances.

India’s Growing Strategic Autonomy: A Redefinition of Non-Alignment

India’s foreign policy has historically been guided by the principle of non-alignment, a stance that sought to maintain independence from major power blocs during the Cold War. In the contemporary multipolar world, this principle has evolved into “strategic autonomy,” signifying India’s intent to engage with multiple partners on its own terms, based on its national interests, rather than being bound by rigid ideological alignments or military pacts.

• Balancing Act in a Multipolar World: Rajnath Singh’s actions exemplify this pursuit of strategic autonomy. India aims to navigate the complex web of global rivalries, particularly between the United States and China, by cultivating relationships across various power centers. This involves strengthening ties with Western democracies (US, Europe, Japan, Australia) through mechanisms like the Quad, while simultaneously maintaining its long-standing strategic partnership with Russia, especially in defense and energy. The refusal to sign the SCO document, despite China’s chairmanship and Russia’s presence, underscores India’s willingness to diverge even from partners if national interests are perceived to be compromised.
• The China Challenge as a Driver: India’s primary geostrategic challenge remains its relationship with China, particularly in the context of the unresolved border dispute and Beijing’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific and India’s immediate neighborhood. India’s strategic autonomy is increasingly geared towards building capacity and resilience, both internally and through partnerships, to counterbalance China’s assertiveness. While India is wary of overtly framing its engagements (like the Quad) as anti-China, its actions are clearly aimed at shaping regional dynamics to ensure a rules-based order and prevent unilateral shifts in the balance of power.
• Beyond Traditional Alliances: India’s strategic autonomy enables it to engage with a diverse array of nations on an issue-by-issue basis. This flexibility allows it to adapt to shifting geopolitical realities, pursue economic opportunities, and address emerging threats without being constrained by the expectations or demands of any single power. The SCO incident demonstrates that this autonomy extends to challenging established narratives within multilateral frameworks, even at the risk of diplomatic friction.

Impact on Relationships with Major Global Powers

India’s assertive stance on counter-terrorism and its broader pursuit of strategic autonomy have tangible implications for its bilateral relationships with key global players.

• United States and Western Allies:
  • Shared Counter-Terrorism Objectives: The US and many Western allies generally share India’s concerns about cross-border terrorism, particularly from groups like LeT and JeM. India’s increasingly firm and proactive counter-terrorism posture, exemplified by Operation Sindoor, often resonates with the West’s own experiences and strategies. This shared understanding can strengthen cooperation in intelligence sharing, law enforcement, and joint counter-terrorism exercises. The global support received for Operation Sindoor, as noted in previous analyses (e.g., from the UK, US, France, Japan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Panama), highlights this alignment.
  • Strategic Convergence in Indo-Pacific: India’s growing engagement with the Quad and its emphasis on a free and open Indo-Pacific align well with the strategic objectives of the US, Japan, and Australia, primarily aimed at countering China’s expansive ambitions. Enhanced defense cooperation, technology transfer, and joint military exercises are hallmarks of these deepening ties.
  • Divergences on Human Rights and Democracy: However, India’s domestic ideological shifts and perceived decline in democratic freedoms (as discussed in Part 4 of the overarching document concept) occasionally create friction with Western nations that prioritize human rights and civil liberties in their foreign policy. While these concerns might be voiced, strategic imperatives (like balancing China) often mean that they do not derail the broader strategic partnership.
• Russia:
  • Historical and Enduring Partnership: Russia remains a crucial defense and energy partner for India. Despite Western sanctions on Russia, India has maintained its engagement, including significant defense procurements like the S-400 missile systems. This underscores India’s commitment to strategic autonomy and its refusal to be dictated by external pressures in its core defense needs.
  • Counter-Terrorism Alignment (with caveats): Russia shares India’s concerns about terrorism, particularly from Islamic extremist groups in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Both nations have cooperated in counter-terrorism exercises and intelligence sharing. However, Russia’s own geopolitical imperatives and its close ties with China (and to a lesser extent, Pakistan) can lead to subtle differences in approach, as evidenced by Russia’s general reluctance to directly criticize Pakistan on terror financing or to fully endorse India’s specific grievances within forums like the SCO. Rajnath Singh’s direct criticism of state sponsors of terror at the SCO meeting, in Russia’s presence, indicates India’s willingness to articulate its position even to close partners.
• China:
  • Intensified Competition and Mistrust: The relationship with China is increasingly characterized by strategic competition and deep mistrust, particularly after the 2020 border clashes and the ongoing standoff in the Himalayas. Rajnath Singh’s firm stand at the SCO meeting, directly challenging a document influenced by China and Pakistan, signals India’s resolve not to yield to Chinese pressure or narratives. This assertive approach contributes to the growing friction in India-China relations, extending beyond bilateral border issues to multilateral diplomatic platforms.
  • Limits of Cooperation: While both are members of BRICS and SCO, India’s ability to cooperate meaningfully with China on security issues is significantly hampered by Beijing’s perceived support for Pakistan’s terror proxies and its broader geopolitical ambitions. The SCO incident highlights that India will not allow its participation in these forums to legitimize what it considers to be China’s enabling role for cross-border terrorism.

India’s Role in the Evolving Asian Security Architecture

India’s assertive diplomacy and its evolving security doctrine are profoundly shaping the Asian security architecture, which is increasingly characterized by a shift from traditional alliances to flexible, multi-layered partnerships.

• Beyond Land-Centric Security: Historically, India’s security outlook was largely land-oriented, driven by threats from Pakistan and China across its land borders. However, India’s growing maritime interests, particularly in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), and the increasing assertiveness of China in the Indo-Pacific, have necessitated a more comprehensive approach. India now actively projects itself as a “net security provider” in the IOR through initiatives like SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) and enhanced naval cooperation with regional partners.
• The Indo-Pacific Strategy: India is a crucial pillar of the Indo-Pacific concept, advocating for an inclusive, open, and rules-based order in the region. Its participation in the Quad, bilateral security dialogues (e.g., with Japan, Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam), and multilateral exercises (e.g., Malabar) reflects its commitment to this vision. Rajnath Singh’s diplomatic assertiveness underscores India’s desire to shape, rather than merely react to, the security dynamics in this critical geopolitical space.
• Relevance of Multilateral Forums: While the SCO incident reveals the limitations of certain multilateral forums in fully addressing India’s security concerns, India remains committed to engaging with a wide range of organizations (e.g., ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus, Indian Ocean Rim Association, BIMSTEC). This diversified approach aims to build coalitions, share best practices, and influence regional security norms. India’s assertiveness means it will seek to reform or challenge existing norms within these forums if they do not align with its core principles.
• The Principle of Reciprocity and Accountability: India’s approach, post-Operation Sindoor, is rooted in the principle that those who sponsor or harbor terrorists must face consequences. This sets a precedent for how India expects its partners and adversaries to behave in regional security discussions. It aims to foster an environment where accountability for terrorism is non-negotiable, thereby strengthening the overall regional security architecture against state-sponsored non-state actors.

Consequences for India’s Global Aspirations and Reputation

India aspires to be a leading global power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a voice for the Global South. Its assertive diplomacy has direct consequences for these ambitions.

• Enhanced Credibility as a Counter-Terrorism Actor: Rajnath Singh’s stand enhances India’s credibility as a nation that not only suffers from terrorism but also acts decisively against it and is unwilling to compromise on principles. This strengthens its position in global counter-terrorism efforts and its advocacy for a comprehensive international convention.
• Diplomatic Risk and Reward: While assertive diplomacy can project strength and defend national interests, it also carries the risk of diplomatic isolation or strained relations with certain countries, as seen with Pakistan and potentially, China within the SCO. However, India appears willing to take these risks, believing that protecting core interests outweighs short-term diplomatic discomfort.
• Leadership in the Global South: India’s stance can resonate with other nations that are victims of cross-border terrorism or proxy conflicts. By demonstrating resolve and demanding accountability, India can solidify its leadership role within the Global South on security issues, advocating for a stronger, more equitable international response to complex threats.
• Shaping the Rules-Based Order: India’s actions contribute to its broader goal of reforming the global rules-based order to reflect the realities of a multipolar world. By challenging selective application of rules and demanding consistency in international norms (e.g., on terrorism), India seeks to build a more just and effective global governance system.

A New Era of Indian Diplomatic Assertiveness

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s refusal to sign the SCO joint statement was far more than a procedural anomaly; it was a powerful signal of India’s evolving geopolitical posture. Rooted in an intensified counter-terrorism doctrine born from decades of experience and culminating in the strategic shifts of post-Operation Sindoor, India is now unequivocally asserting its national security red lines on the global stage. This assertive diplomacy, characterized by a refined strategic autonomy, directly impacts its complex relationships with major powers—seeking deeper convergence with Western allies while maintaining crucial ties with Russia, and directly challenging China on sensitive security matters. By prioritizing principled action over diplomatic expediency, India is not only defending its immediate interests but also actively shaping the contours of the Asian security architecture and striving for a more influential and respected role in a challenging multipolar world. This marks a new era in Indian diplomacy, where strategic autonomy is exercised with resolve, and national security concerns are non-negotiable.

Domestic Drivers of India’s Assertive Foreign Policy: Public Opinion, Political Leadership, and Ideological Underpinnings

The Internal Compass of External Relations

While the previous parts meticulously dissected India’s assertive diplomacy at the SCO and its broader geopolitical implications, it is crucial to recognize that foreign policy is rarely formulated in a vacuum. It is profoundly shaped by internal dynamics, including public sentiment, the vision and priorities of the ruling political leadership, and the dominant ideological currents within the nation. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s uncompromising stance at the SCO, reflective of the “zero tolerance for terrorism” doctrine (as detailed in Part 2), is not merely a strategic calculation but also a response to, and a reinforcement of, specific domestic narratives. This part will explore these intrinsic linkages, analyzing how public opinion, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government’s distinct foreign policy approach, and the rising influence of nationalist ideologies collectively serve as powerful drivers of India’s increasingly assertive and non-negotiable foreign policy posture on issues of national security and sovereignty.

Public Opinion: The Mandate for a Strong and Decisive India

In a democratic polity, public opinion serves as a critical, albeit complex, determinant of foreign policy. In India, particularly in recent years, there has been a palpable shift in public sentiment, increasingly favoring a robust and decisive approach to national security challenges, especially those emanating from cross-border terrorism.

• The Weariness with Cross-Border Terrorism: Decades of enduring cross-border terrorism, culminating in high-profile attacks like the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Uri, and Pulwama, have fostered a deep sense of frustration and anger among the Indian populace. There is a strong public demand for accountability from perpetrators and their state sponsors. This translates into widespread support for firm action, even military responses, against terrorist infrastructure and a clear rejection of perceived appeasement or diplomatic inertia. The public’s backing for actions like Operation Sindoor, often portrayed as a righteous retaliation, is indicative of this sentiment.
• National Pride and Assertiveness: There is a growing sense of national pride and a desire for India to assert its rightful place on the global stage, shedding any lingering perceptions of diffidence or weakness. This nationalistic fervor fuels support for a foreign policy that prioritizes national interests unequivocally and demonstrates strength and resolve in international forums. Any perceived slight or compromise on issues of sovereignty or security, as with the Pahalgam omission or Balochistan reference in the SCO document, tends to evoke strong public disapproval.
• Media’s Role in Shaping Narratives: The Indian media, particularly television news and social media, plays a significant role in amplifying public sentiment and shaping national narratives around foreign policy and national security. Discussions are often framed in terms of national honor, territorial integrity, and strong leadership. This creates a feedback loop where an assertive government stance is lauded, further encouraging similar actions, and ensuring public buy-in for decisions like refusing to sign a joint communique that doesn’t align with the national interest.
• Support for the “Zero Tolerance” Policy: The government’s “zero tolerance for terrorism” policy and the commitment to dismantling terrorist safe havens find strong resonance with the public. There is widespread acceptance that “terror and talks cannot go together” and that those who sponsor terrorism must bear the consequences. This public consensus provides a strong mandate for the government to take resolute diplomatic and military actions.

Political Leadership: The Modi Government’s Distinctive Foreign Policy Paradigm

The current Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and with prominent figures like Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, has introduced a distinctive paradigm in India’s foreign policy, characterized by a blend of pragmatism, assertiveness, and a strong emphasis on national pride.

• Centralization of Foreign Policy: While foreign policy has always been the domain of the Prime Minister, the Modi government has arguably seen a greater centralization of decision-making and a more direct, often personalized, engagement by the Prime Minister in foreign affairs. This provides a clear, unified voice that can execute decisive shifts in policy, such as the proactive counter-terrorism doctrine.
• “India First” and National Interest: The government’s foreign policy is explicitly framed around an “India First” principle, prioritizing national interests—economic development, national security, and global recognition—above all else. This translates into a willingness to take independent positions, even if it means diverging from established norms or challenging traditional partners, as demonstrated by the SCO incident. Rajnath Singh’s actions are a direct reflection of this “India First” and non-negotiable approach to national security.
• Proactive Diplomacy and Deterrence: The government has moved away from what it often characterizes as the previous era’s “strategic restraint” to a more proactive and often muscular diplomacy. This includes not only military actions like surgical strikes and Operation Sindoor but also a diplomatic offensive to isolate adversaries, build strategic partnerships (e.g., Quad), and ensure that India’s voice is heard decisively on global platforms. The message that “epicentres of terrorism are no longer safe and we will not hesitate to target them” is a key component of this new proactive deterrence strategy, openly articulated by key ministers.
• Public Diplomacy and Image Projection: The government has invested significantly in public diplomacy to project an image of a rising, confident India on the global stage. This includes leveraging the Prime Minister’s personal charisma, promoting cultural initiatives, and actively engaging with the Indian diaspora. The assertive foreign policy serves to reinforce this image of strength and capability.
• Rajnath Singh’s Role as Defence Minister: Rajnath Singh, as Defence Minister, is a senior and influential figure within the government and the ruling BJP. His political career, rooted in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and subsequent rise through BJP ranks, positions him as a strong proponent of the party’s ideological leanings and its emphasis on national security. His public statements, such as those made after Operation Sindoor, directly align with the government’s assertive stance. His presence and firm communication at an international forum like the SCO embody the government’s resolve and commitment to its counter-terrorism doctrine, projecting a consistent message to both domestic and international audiences.

Ideological Underpinnings: Nationalism and the Redefinition of Indian Identity

Underpinning the current government’s assertive foreign policy is a strong ideological foundation rooted in a particular strain of nationalism, often associated with the Hindutva ideology of the RSS, the ideological parent of the BJP.

• Reclaiming National Pride and Civilizational Identity: The narrative promoted by the government often emphasizes India’s ancient civilizational glory, its unique cultural heritage, and its historical strengths. This is leveraged to foster a strong sense of national pride and a belief in India’s destiny as a leading global power, or “Vishwaguru.” This emphasis on a distinct, strong Indian identity emboldens a foreign policy that is less concerned with external criticism and more focused on asserting perceived national greatness.
• The “De-hyphenation” Strategy: A key ideological underpinning is the desire to “de-hyphenate” India from Pakistan in international discourse. For decades, the India-Pakistan rivalry often framed global perceptions of South Asia. The current government actively seeks to break this hyphenation, insisting that India’s rise and global role should be viewed independently, based on its own merits and contributions, rather than in perpetual relation to its problematic neighbor. The refusal to sign the SCO document, which linked Pakistan’s Balochistan narrative with the omission of the Pahalgam attack, is a direct application of this de-hyphenation strategy.
• National Security as a Core Tenet: For the nationalist ideology, national security is a paramount concern, often interpreted expansively to include not just territorial integrity but also cultural and civilizational security. This leads to a heightened sensitivity to external threats and a strong resolve to project power and deter adversaries. The “any attack on Indian soil will be considered as an act of war” doctrine, articulated by Rajnath Singh post-Operation Sindoor, is a direct outcome of this security-first ideological framework.
• Internal Cohesion and External Projection: This assertive nationalism also seeks to foster greater internal cohesion by rallying public support around shared national security objectives and a strong leader. This domestic consolidation, in turn, provides the political capital for the government to undertake bold foreign policy initiatives, even those that might carry diplomatic risks.

Feedback Loops: How Domestic Perceptions Influence External Actions

The relationship between domestic drivers and foreign policy is not unidirectional. A strong domestic consensus for a firm foreign policy emboldens the leadership to take more decisive actions externally, which in turn reinforces public approval at home, creating a feedback loop.

• Reinforcing Public Support: Actions like Rajnath Singh’s stand at the SCO meeting, when widely reported and celebrated in Indian media, further solidify public support for the government’s approach. This empowers the leadership to continue pursuing an assertive line.
• Demonstrating Resolve: The government understands that demonstrating resolve on issues like terrorism not only sends a message to external adversaries but also signals strength and capability to its domestic audience, fulfilling electoral promises of robust governance and national security.
• Managing Internal Dissent: While this assertive stance enjoys broad support, it also serves to manage any internal dissent by framing critiques of foreign policy as potentially undermining national interest or unity.

A Domestic Consensus for a Strong Global Footprint

The assertive foreign policy witnessed at the SCO Defence Ministers’ meeting, spearheaded by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, is deeply rooted in India’s domestic landscape. A public weary of cross-border terrorism and desirous of national assertion provides a robust mandate for a firm hand. The distinctive leadership paradigm of the Modi government, characterized by its “India First” approach and proactive deterrence, translates this public will into tangible diplomatic and military actions. Furthermore, the strong ideological underpinnings of nationalism and a redefined Indian identity provide the philosophical framework for a foreign policy that prioritizes national security and sovereignty above all else. This complex interplay of public opinion, political leadership, and ideological currents creates a powerful feedback loop, driving India towards a more assertive global footprint and ensuring that its stance on critical issues like terrorism remains uncompromising, even in the face of multilateral complexities and geopolitical pressures. The incident at Qingdao, therefore, stands as a testament to how India’s external projection is increasingly and inextricably linked to its internal convictions.

Navigating the Future: Strategic Imperatives and the Hard-Soft Power Conundrum

Charting India’s Trajectory in a Volatile World

The preceding parts have meticulously detailed India’s evolving stance on counter-terrorism, exemplified by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s resolute refusal at the SCO (Part 1), the historical underpinnings of this “zero tolerance” doctrine (Part 2), the broad geopolitical ramifications of its assertive diplomacy (Part 3), and the powerful domestic drivers shaping these external actions (Part 4). This final part synthesizes these dimensions to project India’s future trajectory. It argues that for India to effectively navigate the complexities of the 21st century and fulfill its aspirations as a responsible and influential global power, it must strategically balance its burgeoning hard power capabilities with a revitalized, inclusive, and globally resonant soft power. This requires a nuanced understanding of its strategic imperatives, a shrewd assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, and a commitment to overcoming the inherent contradictions that can hinder its rise as a “Vishwaguru” (world teacher).

Strategic Imperatives for India’s Global Ascent

As India consolidates its position as a major power, several strategic imperatives emerge, demanding careful navigation and sustained effort.

• Sustaining the “Zero Tolerance” Counter-Terrorism Posture: The cornerstone of India’s current national security doctrine is its unwavering commitment to “zero tolerance for terrorism,” backed by a demonstrated willingness for proactive deterrence (e.g., Operation Sindoor). This posture must be sustained consistently across all bilateral and multilateral engagements. This involves:
  • Continued Pressure on State Sponsors: Maintaining diplomatic pressure on countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists, leveraging international forums, and building global consensus against such practices.
  • Intelligence and Capability Enhancement: Continuously upgrading intelligence gathering capabilities, refining counter-terrorism operational strategies, and investing in advanced defense technologies to pre-empt and respond effectively to evolving terror threats.
  • Legal and Normative Advocacy: Advocating for robust international legal frameworks against terrorism and ensuring that global norms unequivocally condemn all forms of terrorism without political caveats or double standards. The push for a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) remains vital.
• Deepening Strategic Partnerships and Alliances: India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy does not imply isolation; rather, it necessitates a diversified network of robust partnerships that serve its national interests.
  • Consolidating Indo-Pacific Engagements: Strengthening the Quad (with the US, Japan, Australia) and expanding bilateral and minilateral security cooperation with other like-minded countries in the Indo-Pacific (e.g., Vietnam, Indonesia, France, UK, Germany). This involves not just military cooperation but also collaboration on critical technologies, resilient supply chains, and climate action.
  • Maintaining Traditional Ties (e.g., Russia): Balancing new partnerships with long-standing relationships, particularly with Russia, which remains a key supplier of advanced defense equipment and energy. This requires deft diplomacy to manage external pressures and ensure continued access to critical resources.
  • Engaging the Global South: Leveraging its leadership role in forums like BRICS and its G20 presidency to champion the concerns of the Global South, promoting a more equitable and multipolar world order. This builds goodwill and diplomatic leverage.
• Economic Resilience and Technological Self-Reliance: A strong economy and technological prowess are indispensable for projecting power and influence.
  • “Make in India” for Defence: Accelerating indigenous defense manufacturing to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, thereby enhancing strategic autonomy and creating a robust defense industrial base.
  • Investing in Critical and Emerging Technologies: Prioritizing research, development, and innovation in cutting-edge fields like Artificial Intelligence, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and space technology, crucial for future economic and military power.
  • Global Economic Integration (on India’s terms): Pursuing free trade agreements and economic partnerships that are mutually beneficial, while also protecting its domestic industries and ensuring supply chain resilience, reducing over-reliance on any single nation.
• Resolving Border Issues and Managing Geopolitical Rivalries: Effectively managing the complex and often volatile relationships with its immediate neighbors, particularly China and Pakistan, remains a perennial strategic imperative.
  • De-escalation and Dialogue with China: While maintaining a firm stance on border integrity, finding pragmatic mechanisms for de-escalation and dialogue with China to prevent conflicts from spiraling. However, this must not come at the cost of territorial concessions or compromise on core national interests.
  • Conditional Engagement with Pakistan: Continuing the “terror and talks don’t go together” policy with Pakistan, demanding verifiable action against terror groups as a precondition for comprehensive dialogue. Simultaneously, exploring avenues for de-escalation that do not reward state-sponsored terrorism.
  • Revitalizing Neighborhood Diplomacy: Moving beyond transactionalism to a more empathetic and reciprocal approach with other South Asian neighbors (Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives) to counter external influence and ensure regional stability. This requires addressing their concerns and offering mutually beneficial opportunities.

The Hard-Soft Power Conundrum: Leveraging Attraction and Coercion

India’s ambition to be a leading global power necessitates a sophisticated understanding and application of both hard power (military and economic might) and soft power (cultural influence, political values, and diplomatic persuasion). Rajnath Singh’s assertive actions highlight a greater willingness to wield hard power, but this must be effectively complemented by soft power.

• Hard Power Ascendancy:
  • Military Modernization: India’s defense budget ranks among the highest globally, and it is actively modernizing its armed forces, including naval expansion, advanced missile systems, and indigenous aircraft programs. The demonstrated capability to conduct actions like Operation Sindoor underscores a growing military confidence and a shift from a purely defensive posture to one capable of proactive deterrence. The Lowy Institute’s Asia Power Index 2024 ranks India as the 3rd most powerful country in Asia, behind the US and China, driven by consistent defense spending and manpower.
  • Economic Leverage: India’s rapidly growing economy, projected to become the third largest globally, provides significant economic leverage in international relations. Its large market, growing consumer base, and increasing investments abroad are powerful tools for diplomatic influence. Initiatives like the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) showcase its economic projection.
• Soft Power Challenges and Opportunities: While India possesses immense soft power potential, particularly through its ancient civilization, democratic values, and vibrant diaspora, maximizing this influence presents challenges.
  • Cultural Diplomacy: India’s rich cultural heritage—Yoga, Ayurveda, Bollywood, diverse arts, and spiritual traditions—holds global appeal. The “soft power strategies” under Prime Minister Modi have notably promoted cultural connectivity and diaspora engagement. However, the effectiveness of this diplomacy depends on broad appeal and not being perceived as narrowly aligned with specific ideological or religious narratives. Concerns about internal socio-political dynamics (as noted in Part 4) can sometimes undermine the universal appeal of its cultural offerings.
  • Democratic Values and Pluralism: Historically, India’s status as the world’s largest democracy, its secular constitution, and its pluralistic society have been powerful soft power assets. However, recent international reports and global indices (as touched upon in the original prompt context and prior parts’ broader themes) indicate a perceived decline in democratic freedoms and minority rights. For India’s soft power to truly resonate, it must consistently uphold and demonstrate its commitment to these values domestically. Discrepancies between stated values and internal realities can create a “power gap” where influence is less than its resources suggest.
  • Diaspora as a Bridge: The Indian diaspora, a vast network of professionals, entrepreneurs, and cultural ambassadors, is an unparalleled soft power asset. However, as previously discussed, a truly strategic engagement must be inclusive, transcend partisan politics, and address the diverse perspectives and grievances within the diaspora to unlock its full potential. Alienating sections of the diaspora through ideological selectivity can diminish this valuable asset.
  • Global Governance and Normative Influence: India’s aspiration to be a “Vishwaguru” implies setting global norms and principles. This requires not just advocating for reforms in international institutions but also demonstrating consistent adherence to ethical leadership and universal values. Challenges to its credibility on human rights or democratic practices at home can limit its ability to genuinely influence global norms. An understaffed Ministry of External Affairs, as noted in recent reports, also poses a structural challenge to effectively project India’s diplomatic and soft power.

Balancing Act: The Path Forward

For India to effectively navigate the future, a strategic balancing act between its hard and soft power is essential.

• Coherent Narrative: India needs to cultivate a coherent and consistent narrative that integrates its assertive hard power projection with its aspirational soft power. This means demonstrating that its military strength is for defense and stability, not aggression, and that its economic rise benefits not just India but also contributes to global prosperity.
• Addressing Internal Contradictions: To enhance its soft power, India must proactively address domestic concerns about human rights, pluralism, and democratic institutions. A strong, vibrant, and inclusive democracy at home is the most potent source of its global attraction and credibility.
• Multilateral Engagement with Purpose: India should continue to engage actively in multilateral forums, not just to articulate its specific grievances but also to lead on global issues (e.g., climate change, sustainable development, global health) where it can build consensus and project moral authority. Its G20 presidency demonstrated this capacity for global leadership.
• Strategic Communication: Investing in sophisticated strategic communication that effectively articulates India’s foreign policy objectives, its rationale for assertive actions, and its commitment to global peace and stability. This involves engaging with international media, think tanks, and civil society.
• Investing in Diplomatic Resources: To effectively manage its growing global footprint and increasingly complex foreign policy, India must significantly invest in expanding and strengthening its diplomatic corps, ensuring that the Ministry of External Affairs has the human resources and expertise needed to operate on a truly global scale.

India’s Moment of Choice for a Resilient Future

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s firm stand at the SCO meeting was a definitive signal of a new, assertive India—a nation unwilling to compromise on its core security interests and committed to a proactive stance against terrorism. This incident, emblematic of a broader strategic shift post-Operation Sindoor, marks a critical juncture in India’s journey towards global power. The path forward for India lies in a judicious and integrated deployment of its hard and soft power. While its burgeoning military and economic might provide the necessary leverage, its ultimate global influence, and indeed its aspiration to be a “Vishwaguru,” will depend on its ability to consistently embody its foundational democratic values, foster genuine pluralism, and engage with the world with an inclusive and principled vision. By addressing its internal challenges while relentlessly pursuing its external objectives, India can forge a resilient future, solidify its standing as a responsible global actor, and truly realize its potential as a leading force in shaping a more just and stable international order. The choices made today, particularly concerning the delicate balance between power projection and principled values, will define India’s role in the 21st century.

Future Forward: Strategic Vision, Institutional Resilience, and Global Leadership

Consolidating Gains and Charting a Long-Term Course

The journey through India’s evolving counter-terrorism doctrine, its assertive diplomatic maneuvers, and the complex interplay of geopolitical and domestic drivers (as meticulously explored in Parts 1-5) reveals a nation increasingly confident in its global standing and resolute in defending its national interests. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s firm stance at the SCO was not an isolated act but a manifestation of a deeper strategic transformation. As India looks to the future, the critical challenge lies in consolidating these gains, ensuring sustained momentum, and developing a long-term strategic vision that transcends immediate challenges. This part will outline the key elements of India’s future foreign policy trajectory, focusing on institutional resilience, continued reform of its strategic architecture, and its potential to emerge as a genuine global leader that shapes, rather than merely reacts to, the international order.

Strategic Pillars for Future Foreign Policy Excellence

To effectively navigate the complex global landscape, India must refine and bolster several strategic pillars that underpin its foreign policy.

• Integrated National Security Strategy: While India has made significant strides in adopting a proactive national security posture (the Doval Doctrine and post-2019 shifts), the absence of a comprehensive, publicly articulated National Security Strategy (NSS) remains a lacuna. A well-defined NSS would:
  • Provide Coherence: Offer a unified framework that integrates military, economic, diplomatic, technological, and societal dimensions of national security.
  • Guide Resource Allocation: Ensure optimal allocation of resources across various security agencies and foreign policy instruments.
  • Signal Intent: Clearly articulate India’s threat perceptions, red lines, and response mechanisms to both adversaries and allies, enhancing deterrence and predictability. This would move beyond reactive responses to a truly anticipatory approach.
  • Institutionalize Adaptability: Be a living document, reviewed periodically to adapt to evolving geopolitical realities, technological advancements, and emerging threats (e.g., hybrid warfare, cyber threats, narco-terrorism, economic coercion).
• Strengthening Intelligence and Information Dominance: Effective foreign policy, particularly one focused on proactive counter-terrorism and strategic autonomy, is predicated on superior intelligence and information dominance.
  • Enhancing Collection and Analysis: Investing significantly in human intelligence (HUMINT), signal intelligence (SIGINT), and cyber intelligence capabilities. This includes advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence for threat assessment and early warning.
  • Inter-Agency Coordination: Fostering seamless coordination and intelligence sharing among various national security agencies (RAW, IB, NIA, NTRO, armed forces intelligence wings) to ensure a holistic threat assessment and coordinated response.
  • Counter-Disinformation Warfare: Developing robust capabilities to counter hostile propaganda, disinformation campaigns, and narrative warfare aimed at undermining India’s image and internal cohesion.
• Deepening Economic Statecraft: Economic power is increasingly intertwined with geopolitical influence. India must leverage its economic dynamism to advance its foreign policy objectives.
  • Resilient Supply Chains: Actively participating in and shaping initiatives for resilient global supply chains, reducing over-reliance on single sources, and enhancing economic security.
  • Leveraging Trade and Investment: Using trade agreements, investment promotion, and development assistance as tools of influence, particularly with immediate neighbors and countries in the Global South.
  • Technological Partnerships: Forging strategic partnerships in critical and emerging technologies (semiconductors, AI, biotech, green energy) to secure access to cutting-edge innovation and reduce technological dependencies.
• Investing in Diplomatic Capacity Building: Despite its growing global ambitions, India’s diplomatic infrastructure faces capacity constraints.
  • Expanding Diplomatic Cadre: Significantly increasing the intake and training of Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officers, ensuring greater linguistic proficiency, regional expertise, and specialized knowledge in areas like cybersecurity, climate diplomacy, and economic negotiations.
  • Modernizing Diplomatic Missions: Equipping Indian missions abroad with cutting-edge technology, greater autonomy, and sufficient resources to effectively execute India’s foreign policy objectives and engage with diverse stakeholders.
  • Public-Private Partnerships in Diplomacy: Exploring greater collaboration with Indian businesses, think tanks, academic institutions, and civil society organizations to amplify India’s global voice and extend its diplomatic reach.

Reforming Multilateralism and Shaping Global Norms

India’s assertive posture is not just about defending its interests but also about reforming the global order to be more representative, just, and effective.

• UN Security Council Reform: Continuing its unwavering push for permanent membership in a reformed and expanded UN Security Council, arguing that its size, population, economic power, and democratic credentials make it a legitimate contender. This requires sustained diplomatic engagement with all UNSC members and building broader consensus among UN member states.
• Strengthening Multilateral Counter-Terrorism Frameworks: Beyond the SCO, India must redouble its efforts in other global counter-terrorism forums, including the UN’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
  • Pushing for CCIT Adoption: Renewing diplomatic efforts for the early adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), which aims to provide a universal legal framework for combating terrorism.
  • Enhancing FATF Compliance: Working with the FATF to ensure stricter global standards for combating terror financing and money laundering, thereby starving terrorist organizations of funds.
  • Addressing Emerging Threats: Championing international cooperation against new forms of terror, including the misuse of emerging technologies (AI, drones, cryptocurrency) by non-state actors, and the spread of radicalization online.
• Shaping Norms on Cross-Border Terrorism: Leveraging its position as a major victim of cross-border terrorism to establish stronger international norms that hold state sponsors accountable and unequivocally condemn all forms of terrorism, without exceptions or political justifications. This includes working to ensure that the international community rejects “good terrorist/bad terrorist” distinctions.
• Leading on Global Commons: Taking a leading role in shaping international norms and cooperation frameworks for global commons such as cyberspace, outer space, and the oceans, ensuring they remain open, safe, and governed by rules that protect national interests while promoting global stability.

Addressing Internal Factors for External Strength

The domestic drivers of India’s foreign policy, particularly public opinion, political leadership, and ideological currents, must be managed effectively to ensure consistency and long-term strength.

• Maintaining Public Consensus: While a strong public mandate for assertive foreign policy is beneficial, the government must continuously engage in strategic communication to inform and educate the public about the complexities of international relations. This helps manage expectations and sustain support during periods of diplomatic friction or strategic patience.
• Inclusive Nationalism: The assertive nationalism driving India’s foreign policy must remain inclusive, reflecting India’s pluralistic fabric. Any perception of internal divisions or discrimination based on religion or identity can undermine India’s soft power and provide ammunition for its adversaries. A strong, confident India is one that is united internally, respecting the diversity of its people.
• Balancing Domestic Priorities with External Demands: The government must continue to balance the pressing domestic demands (economic development, social welfare) with the resources and attention required for an active and ambitious foreign policy. A thriving domestic environment provides the essential foundation for effective external projection.

Contingency Planning and Crisis Management

In an increasingly volatile and unpredictable world, robust contingency planning and sophisticated crisis management mechanisms are paramount for India’s foreign policy.

• Scenario Planning: Developing detailed scenario plans for potential crises (e.g., major border escalation, large-scale terror attack, regional instability, global economic shocks) to ensure swift, coordinated, and effective responses.
• Rapid Response Mechanisms: Establishing agile and well-resourced rapid response units within the foreign and defense ministries, capable of deploying diplomatic, intelligence, and even military assets swiftly in times of crisis.
• Multi-Agency Coordination in Crises: Strengthening mechanisms for inter-agency coordination during crises, ensuring seamless communication and decision-making among all relevant government departments and security agencies.

Conclusion: India as a Net Contributor to Global Security

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s uncompromising stance at the SCO meeting epitomizes India’s emergence as a more assertive and self-assured global actor. This assertiveness is rooted in a clear recognition of its national interests, a hardening resolve against terrorism, and a desire to shape a multipolar world order. Moving forward, India’s success will hinge not only on its growing hard power capabilities but crucially, on its ability to leverage its considerable soft power potential, which in turn requires sustained commitment to its democratic values and internal cohesion. By investing in institutional strengthening, refining its strategic vision, championing reforms in multilateralism, and responsibly managing its complex relationships, India can truly solidify its position not just as a major power, but as a net contributor to global security and stability. The challenge lies in translating this vision into consistent, impactful action, demonstrating that India is indeed ready to assume its rightful mantle as a leading voice for a more just, peaceful, and secure international future.

Also Read : Top 10 Insights Into Why India Ignored the Zohran Mamdani Story: A Deep Dive into Media and Power Structures