The massacre in Pahalgam has reignited a familiar cycle of grief and fury across the country. Yet amidst this national trauma, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s response has been anything but measured. His declarations of vengeance, broadcast across the nation, have morphed what could have been a solemn moment of unity into a performance of war rhetoric aimed at deepening majoritarian sentiment and political polarisation.
In Madhya Pradesh, Modi declared that “the blood of every Indian demands justice” and vowed that “those sheltering terror will face the wrath of our soldiers”. Such language, dripping with a sense of historical grievance and righteous fury, electrified his base. A closer textual and rhetorical analysis of Modi’s statements suggests a deeper political strategy: an orchestration of national anger into a form of aggressive Hindu nationalism that aligns with the RSS’s long-cherished vision of a “Hindurashtra”.
Modi’s choice of words—”enemy within”, “historic retribution”, “final battle”—shifts the discourse from a specific act of terror to a broader civilisational confrontation. By framing Pakistan not merely as a hostile neighbour but as the embodiment of existential evil, Modi reconfigures a geopolitical problem into a near-spiritual struggle.
This is not accidental. Such histrionics tap into a long-standing rhetorical strategy where militaristic populism substitutes strategic clarity. War becomes not an option of last resort but a narrative necessity to maintain political momentum. In Modi’s India, emotional saturation has replaced strategic sobriety, and slogans have taken the place of policy.
Also Read | Pahalgam attack and the myth of normalcy
Internationally, Modi’s rhetorical belligerence found an amplifier in U.S. President Donald Trump. In a swift, seemingly offhand remark, Trump endorsed India’s “right to defend itself”. He suggested punitive actions against those responsible for Pahalgam. This gave Modi a critical external validation—allowing the BJP’s propaganda machine to portray India’s quest for revenge not merely as a regional necessity but as a righteous crusade backed by the world’s most powerful democracy.
Trump’s backing not only boosted Modi’s domestic standing by aligning him with the global “war on terror” discourse, but it also offered the illusion of international impunity for aggressive actions against Pakistan. Yet, this rhetorical alignment, forged on populist impulses rather than strategic plans, risks pushing India further down the path of militaristic bravado without securing any sustainable gains.
Against the backdrop of Trump’s endorsement, China struck a different tone. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged both India and Pakistan to exercise “maximum restraint” and advocated for “calm dialogue”. Beijing’s cautious stance, couched in the language of regional stability, accentuated the serious risks of unchecked escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbours.
Wang Yi’s intervention subtly highlighted the larger geopolitical risks that Modi’s rhetoric appeared to ignore: that any reckless escalation would not only destabilise South Asia but also jeopardise Beijing’s own strategic and economic interests in the region (including its grand Belt and Road Initiative).
Rhetoric vs reality
Despite Modi’s muscular rhetoric, India’s military establishment has shown no indication of planning for full-scale war. Precedents after Pulwama and Uri suggest that any retaliation is likely to be surgical, symbolic, and meticulous. The dissonance between Modi’s fiery public speeches and the military’s cautious planning indicates that the primary audience for Modi’s war rhetoric is not Islamabad; it is the Indian electorate.
By invoking imagery of sacrifice, betrayal, and revenge, Modi ostensibly reaffirms the BJP’s “monopoly” over the discourse of national security. It allows him to portray himself as the sole defender of Indian honour while painting political dissenters as internal saboteurs. In this sense, war becomes less a matter of statecraft and more a vehicle for domestic political mobilisation.
A forensic reading of Modi’s speeches shows a deliberate conflation of external threats with internal dissent. Terms like “betrayal from within” and warnings about “invisible enemies” within Indian society tend to weaponise grief to justify political repression. The rhetoric not only demonises Pakistan but implicates India’s own Muslim minority and political critics as potential traitors.
Such language bears chilling echoes of early fascist discourse as outlined by thinkers like Umberto Eco: the cult of a besieged nation, the glorification of militarism, the obsession with internal enemies, and the fusion of religion with political identity. Modi’s rhetoric thus marks not merely a tactical response to terror but a shift toward illiberalism.
Strategic myopia
India’s long-term security challenges—from cross-border terrorism to insurgency in Kashmir—require nuanced, difficult work: strengthening intelligence, repairing fractured trust in Kashmir, building diplomatic coalitions against terror financing. But such strategies lack the immediate emotional payoff that wartime rhetoric provides.
Also Read | Is anger our mourning now?
By choosing the path of manufactured militarism, Modi risks strategic myopia. High on nationalist fervour but hollow in terms of substantive gains, his response to Pahalgam may offer short-term political dividends at the cost of deepening societal fractures and damaging India’s international credibility as a sober, democratic power.
Ultimately, Modi’s post-Pahalgam rhetoric transforms national tragedy into political spectacle. The real wounds—the erosion of democratic pluralism, the widening religious divides, the steady hollowing out of institutional checks and balances—are masked behind the clamour of revenge and the optics of strength.
Nations are rarely defeated by the enemies they demonise. More often, they are undone by the illusions they nurture about themselves. In weaponising grief and manufacturing militarism, Modi risks hollowing out the very idea of India he claims to defend.
Debashis Chakrabarti is a political columnist and Commonwealth Fellow, UK.
COMMents
SHARE