Modi Era and India-Pakistan Relations: A Shift in Strategy Since 2014

The year 2014 marked a watershed moment in India-Pakistan relations with Narendra Modi’s ascension to power as India’s Prime Minister. Unlike previous administrations that often prioritized diplomatic engagement despite provocations, the Modi government introduced a markedly different approach-one that emphasized strength, decisive action, and a zero-tolerance policy toward cross-border terrorism. This shift has fundamentally altered the dynamics between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, moving from a pattern of restraint to one of calculated assertiveness.

The strategic pivot: From restraint to assertiveness 🔗

Prior to 2014, India’s approach toward Pakistan largely followed a policy of strategic restraint. Even after major terror attacks like the 2008 Mumbai attacks, India’s response remained primarily diplomatic, focusing on international pressure rather than direct military action. However, the Modi administration departed from this traditional approach, introducing what many analysts call a “muscular foreign policy.”

This new strategy rests on three fundamental pillars: military deterrence, diplomatic isolation, and economic pressure. Unlike the previous approach of engaging with Pakistan despite terror attacks, the Modi government made it clear that dialogue and terrorism cannot go hand in hand. This position represented a significant departure from the conventional wisdom that engagement, regardless of circumstances, was the only path to peace.

Surgical strikes: Redefining military response 🔗

The most dramatic manifestation of this policy shift came in September 2016, following the Uri attack that killed 19 Indian soldiers. For the first time since 1971, India conducted what it termed “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control, targeting terror launch pads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. These precision strikes marked a new threshold in India’s military response to terrorism.

The surgical strikes sent several messages simultaneously. To Pakistan, they demonstrated India’s willingness to use military force when diplomacy failed. To the international community, they showcased India’s restraint-choosing targeted action over broader escalation. Domestically, they satisfied public demand for a strong response to terrorism while maintaining India’s image as a responsible nuclear power.

The Balakot airstrikes: Escalating the ante 🔗

The Pulwama attack in February 2019, which killed 40 CRPF personnel, prompted an even more significant response. India conducted airstrikes on alleged terrorist camps in Balakot, Pakistan-the first instance of India crossing the international border for such an operation since 1971. This action represented a further escalation in India’s response matrix, demonstrating that Pakistan’s territory was no longer a sanctuary for terrorists.

The Balakot strikes accomplished multiple strategic objectives. They expanded India’s response options beyond the traditional retaliatory framework, created a new precedent for cross-border action, and reinforced the message that India would not hesitate to act decisively against terrorism. However, they also brought the two nations dangerously close to a larger conflict, highlighting the risks inherent in this more assertive approach.

Diplomatic isolation strategy 🔗

Parallel to military measures, the Modi government pursued an aggressive diplomatic campaign to isolate Pakistan internationally. This strategy involved leveraging India’s growing economic clout and strategic partnerships to build consensus against Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorism.

India’s efforts bore fruit in various international forums. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placed Pakistan on its “grey list” for failing to combat money laundering and terrorism financing effectively. India successfully built international pressure for Pakistan to act against terrorist groups operating from its soil, particularly Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Leveraging multilateral platforms 🔗

The Indian government also utilized platforms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), BRICS, and bilateral relationships with major powers to build pressure on Pakistan. By framing the terrorism issue as a global concern rather than a bilateral dispute, India managed to gather significant international support for its position.

This diplomatic offensive extended to trade and investment as well. India revoked Pakistan’s Most Favored Nation (MFN) status and imposed additional tariffs, using economic tools as instruments of pressure. While these measures had limited economic impact given the already modest bilateral trade, they carried significant symbolic weight.

Article 370 and the Kashmir question 🔗

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Modi government’s Pakistan policy was the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, which granted special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. This move fundamentally altered the legal and political status of Kashmir, converting the state into two Union Territories directly administered by the central government.

The decision had profound implications for India-Pakistan relations. Pakistan vehemently opposed the move, suspending bilateral trade, downgrading diplomatic ties, and attempting to internationalize the issue. Prime Minister Imran Khan compared the Indian government to Nazi Germany and warned of potential genocide in Kashmir.

From India’s perspective, the abrogation was an internal matter that would help integrate Kashmir better with the rest of the country and reduce Pakistan’s influence in the region. The government argued that Article 370 had hindered development and perpetuated separatist sentiments in the valley.

International reactions and implications 🔗

While Pakistan sought international intervention, the global response was largely muted. Major powers, including the United States, Russia, and China, maintained that Kashmir was a bilateral issue to be resolved between India and Pakistan. This response validated India’s strategy of building strong bilateral relationships that would support its position on contentious issues.

The Article 370 decision also demonstrated the Modi government’s willingness to take bold, unilateral actions that previous governments had avoided due to their potentially destabilizing effects on regional relations. It reinforced the image of a government that would not be deterred by Pakistani objections or threats when pursuing what it considered India’s national interests.

Economic dimensions of the new policy 🔗

The Modi government’s approach toward Pakistan also included significant economic components. Beyond trade restrictions, India began linking economic cooperation to Pakistan’s actions on terrorism. The suspension of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit in 2016, with support from other member countries, demonstrated how India was willing to sacrifice regional economic integration to maintain pressure on Pakistan.

This economic dimension extended to projects like the Chabahar Port in Iran, which India developed partly to bypass Pakistan for trade with Afghanistan and Central Asia. Such initiatives reflected a broader strategy of reducing dependence on Pakistan for regional connectivity while building alternative partnerships.

Challenges and criticisms 🔗

Despite its assertive stance, the Modi government’s Pakistan policy has faced several challenges and criticisms. Critics argue that the aggressive approach has led to increased tensions without necessarily reducing terrorist attacks or improving bilateral relations. The policy’s effectiveness in actually stopping terrorism remains a subject of debate.

Moreover, the escalatory potential of this approach poses significant risks. The February 2019 aerial encounters between Indian and Pakistani aircraft demonstrated how quickly situations could spiral toward larger conflicts. In a region with two nuclear-armed neighbors, such escalations carry catastrophic risks.

Domestic political considerations 🔗

Some analysts argue that the tough stance on Pakistan serves domestic political purposes, appealing to nationalist sentiments within India’s electorate. While this may enhance electoral prospects, it could also reduce flexibility in policy-making and make de-escalation more difficult when required.

Regional and global implications 🔗

The shift in India’s Pakistan policy has broader implications for regional stability and global security. The breakdown of traditional confidence-building measures and communication channels has increased the risk of miscalculation and conflict escalation. This has implications not just for South Asia but for global security, given both countries’ nuclear capabilities.

The policy has also affected relationships with other regional powers. China’s close ties with Pakistan and its concerns about Indian assertiveness have added new dimensions to regional geopolitics. The India-Pakistan rivalry has increasingly become intertwined with broader great power competition in the region.

Future prospects and potential pathways 🔗

Looking ahead, the sustainability and effectiveness of this assertive approach remain open questions. While it has succeeded in building international pressure on Pakistan and demonstrating India’s resolve, it has not fundamentally resolved the underlying issues that drive conflict between the two countries.

Some experts suggest that a more nuanced approach might be necessary-one that combines firmness on terrorism with openness to dialogue on other issues. Others argue that the current policy needs more time to show results and that any premature return to engagement would be seen as weakness.

The role of external powers, particularly the United States and China, will likely be crucial in shaping future India-Pakistan relations. As both countries compete for influence in South Asia, their approaches toward India-Pakistan tensions could significantly impact regional dynamics.

What do you think? Has India’s more assertive approach toward Pakistan since 2014 been effective in achieving its strategic objectives, or has it merely escalated tensions without addressing underlying issues? How might this policy affect long-term regional stability in South Asia?