The End of Nuclear Blackmail and India’s Doctrine of Resolve

By refusing to be cowed by nuclear blackmail, India has drawn a red line after Operation Sindoor that challenges the West’s double standards.

Last month, during his first public address following the retaliatory Operation Sindoor (which was launched by India after the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist strike), Prime Minister Narendra Modi made two statements of consequence on India’s approach to Pakistan. First, he reiterated that “terrorism and talks cannot go together” which has been a long-standing position. But it was the second assertion that has marked a paradigm shift. Modi firmly said that India would “no longer relent to nuclear war blackmail.” The gauntlet has been firmly thrown.

The hardening of India’s response is informed not merely by the regularity of Pakistan-sponsored terror, but by the coordinated international reaction that followed India’s retaliatory strike. Even before the first sortie of Operation Sindoor had taken off, Pakistani leaders were already issuing shrill warnings of nuclear escalation that were eagerly amplified by Western governments and their media outlets in what appeared to be a synchronised chorus. This, despite India’s prior communication to both Islamabad and key Western capitals that the operation would be narrowly focused on terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

New Delhi’s political establishment was understandably dismayed. President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he had helped to “stop” such a war. The irony is rich: India, which would have borne the brunt of any hypothetical nuclear exchange, had raised no such alarms. Nor did Russia or several other non-Western powers. Why then was the West so quick to sound the nuclear sirens?

The West’s nuclear alarmism is not new. During the Kargil conflict in 1999, similar warnings were issued and that, too, only after Indian forces began turning the tide. Contrast that with other flashpoints involving nuclear powers. Whether it is the proxy war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine or tensions between the US and China in the South China Sea, nuclear escalation is rarely part of the mainstream Western narrative. Indeed, only the West has actually dropped nuclear bombs – the U.S. against Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 - and in more recent decades deployed depleted uranium munitions in conflicts like Iraq and Syria.

Today, Russia has openly threatened the use of nuclear weapons should NATO escalate the war in Ukraine. Yet Western leaders have dismissed such warnings as bluster while continuing to arm Ukraine. Why the double standard?

To understand the West’s selective nuclear sensitivity, one must examine its strategic interests in South Asia.

The West’s primary interest in India is economic: tapping into its vast market. Geopolitically, India is useful as a counterweight to China and a potential partner in loosening ties with Russia. But this partnership is conditional. India’s ambitions for regional leadership and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council are often met with quiet resistance. New Delhi is welcomed into forums like the Quad but kept just outside the gates of elite global influence. Meanwhile, subtle interference in form of often stoking tensions along its borders keeps India preoccupied at home and less assertive abroad.

By contrast, the West’s relationship with Pakistan has been mercurial, oscillating between that of a ‘key ally’ and a troublesome but tolerated partner. Pakistan’s strategic location, abutting Iran, China, Afghanistan and India, makes it invaluable for Western power projection. Its ruling elites, especially the military, have long been compliant instruments of Western designs in the region. The West does not object to Pakistan being poor so long as its generals and political elites remain well-fed. Arms supplies from China, Turkey and the West keep the Pakistani military well-stocked, even as its economy teeters.

Pakistan’s armed forces are capable, but the country’s economic fragility means it cannot sustain a multi-front war. This is where its nuclear arsenal plays a vital role. Unlike India’s nuclear programme which was conceived with China in mind, Pakistan’s is aimed squarely at India. This suits both Chinese and Western interests: it keeps India’s strategic ambitions in check while maintaining Pakistan’s utility as a lever.

India’s nuclear ambitions have long been viewed with suspicion by the West. Despite never breaching any international treaties or IAEA protocols, India faced sanctions, sabotage, and even physical attacks on its scientists. Only in the past two decades has the tide turned somewhat, with civil nuclear agreements and defence cooperation frameworks emerging, albeit cautiously.

Pakistan, on the other hand, encountered no such roadblocks. Its nuclear programme was bankrolled by petrodollars from autocracies in the Middle East, technically assisted by China, and diplomatically ignored by the West. Intelligence agencies like the CIA, despite being deeply embedded in Pakistan, looked the other way. Indeed, parts of the Western intelligence and industrial complex covertly assisted the effort, with evidence linking countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland and Japan in facilitating uranium enrichment and centrifuge technology.

When Pakistan’s infamous nuclear proliferation network led by A.Q. Khan was caught peddling atomic secrets to North Korea, Libya and Iran, the West’s reaction was muted. The IAEA was never allowed to investigate. Western agencies later acknowledged, mostly for domestic consumption, that they had been aware of the activities but refrained from action “due to strategic concerns.”

The practical utility of nuclear weapons today lies less in their use and more in the threat they pose. Pakistan, aided by sympathetic voices in the West, has mastered this psychological game, using nuclear posturing to deter Indian retaliation and influence international opinion. Each time India responds to a terrorist provocation, Western governments swiftly raise concerns about ‘escalation,’ equating the aggressor and the victim.

This suits Pakistan perfectly. The threat of nuclear war acts as a shield, allowing it to wage a proxy war through jihadist outfits without inviting full-scale retaliation. For the West, this equilibrium keeps Pakistan pliable and militarily available for use in other theatres without the risk of it being destabilised by a conventional war with India. Everyone wins -m except India.

The double standard is glaring. India, a democracy and a responsible nuclear power, is routinely bracketed with a state sponsor of terrorism. The moment it responds to provocation, global headlines scream of apocalypse. And so far, the West’s concern has rarely been for Indian lives lost to terrorism but for the hypothetical risks posed by India’s response.

This time, India appears determined to challenge that narrative. Its move to send parliamentary delegations to explain its position to foreign governments and global institutions was a well-thought out one. The aim is to dismantle the false equivalence between a sovereign democracy defending itself and a rogue state exporting terror.

Whether this campaign ultimately succeeds in shifting perceptions remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: India’s new doctrine of refusing to be cowed by nuclear blackmail is a strategic reset, and perhaps the clearest assertion yet that India intends to chart its own path in the world. After all, deterrence cannot be one-sided. If Pakistan continues to benefit from Western indulgence and nuclear bluffing, then India is justified in asserting its right to respond firmly and proportionately.

(The author is a veteran journalist based in Navi Mumbai. Views personal.)