Obsession with terrorism has made India a mere spectator in the geopolitical theatre

Ghazala Wahab

At the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s (SCO) defence minister’s meeting in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on April 28, India lost another opportunity to make its voice heard. Or make a worthwhile intervention in global discourse.

Instead of a statement on the war against Iran, the rapid transformation in the geopolitical dynamics of West Asia, the erosion of US hegemony and credibility in the world, the unravelling of NATO, the weakening of the European Union and emergence of Eurasia as the new power centre, therefore meriting a new cooperative, non-confrontationist security architecture, defence minister Rajnath Singh’s speech demonstrated that India has not only failed to grasp the monumental changes taking place in the world, but it has also become hostage to its own narrative, which it started to build after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government came to power in 2014.

Rajnath Singh essentially made four points in his speech. One, he said, “World is facing a growing challenge in the form of extremism, radicalism and terrorism. Terrorism has become the most serious threat to the emerging world order.” 

Two, he referred to Operation Sindoor as a testimony to India’s zero-tolerance outlook towards terrorism and its perpetrators. He also urged SCO to not have double standards on terrorism. In the presence of Pakistan’s defence minister, he said, “We must not lose sight of state sponsored cross-border terrorism which attacks the very sovereignty of a nation state.” Sure enough, this is what made it to the Indian newspapers the next day--that he called out Pakistan once again. Clearly, his speech was not aimed at the delegates at SCO, but Indians back home. 

Three, while he said, “that terrorism has no nationality and no theology,’ he added that ‘No grievance, real or supposed, can become an excuse for terrorism and humanitarian loss.” So, basically, he delinked terrorism from its political, social and economic context. Reducing it to mere violence. And violence without context deserves only a violent response, not engagement—an attitude which Israel displays in Palestine. Incidentally, ‘terrorism’ or any kind of violent movement (whether you called it an insurgency or resistance) cannot exist, let alone sustain itself over decades without a very strong political, social or economic grievance. Existence of a deeply felt grievance is a prerequisite for recruitment of cadre and to elicit complete