Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru taking salute from school children on occasion of his birthday celebrations in Delhi.
Credit: X/@IndiaHistorypic
During Pakistan’s early years, a young politician hailing from Sindh province, won the hearts of his countrymen and slowly came to power with his unique vision of Islamic socialism. In 1965, he stood in front of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and delivered a speech that would become the basis of Pakistan’s military doctrine against India.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the socialist politician, stood in front of the world and vowed to ‘wage a 1000 year-war with India’. His iconic speech has translated into decades of proxy wars, state-sponsored terrorism and intense cross border aggression.
This Berkeley graduate would go on to become the founder of Pakistan People’s Party and would lead the country as both the prime minister and the president in the years to come.
Though his reign wasn’t long, the words he spoke that day have continued to fuel Pakistan’s vendetta against India and gave birth to the doctrine of ‘Bleeding India with a Thousand Cuts’. This doctrine has been twisting India’s arm since its inception and has had a monumental effect on India’s foreign policy.
But to understand India’s foreign policy especially vis-a-vis Pakistan we need to turn back the clock and reach 1947, where we will find another ardent socialist who too went on to become the prime minister of his country and delivered one of his finest speeches. Albeit under different circumstances.
At the stroke of the midnight hour on August 15, Jawaharlal Nehru’s words resonated amongst the people of a newly-independent India. As decades passed, Nehru’s vision continued to guide generations of those who assumed leadership roles subsequently and took it upon themselves to change the country for the better.
Years later, even his bête noire Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed similar thoughts as he faced the nation and reiterated the country’s resolve to fight any threat which dares to bring harm to our ‘Watan’.
Since our independence, we have covered a long distance pursuing our quest for integration with the global order and have evolved from a mere idealist to a pragmatic and assertive world power. But how did we get here? Let’s try to understand this journey.
Birth of an independent nation
India’s birth as an independent nation came at a time when the world was transitioning into a new order. The once-dominant ideologies like Colonialism and Imperialism slowly began to crumble. And the end of WW2 marked the emergence of two new superpowers---United States of America and the USSR. These two superpowers divided the world in two blocs and demanded the other countries to align with their ideologies.
However, having just shed the prefix ‘British’ from its name, India realised that rallying behind either of the superpowers will probably cause more harm than good and will compromise its hard-earned independence.
During the years preceding its independence, Nehru realised that India wasn’t the only one which was fighting against a colonial power, there were many other nations in Asia and Africa who were trying to establish an indigenous government and overthrow the foreign rule. Moreover, he also realised that many of these ‘new’ countries would emerge in a similar situation as India when they attain their freedom from the clutches of colonialism.
Thus, to give these emerging nations a chance to build their own destinies, without having the burden to blindly toe the lines of ring masters of the new emerging world order, Nehru along with other visionary leaders of the aspiring ‘third world’ conceived and nurtured the ideology of maintaining distance from either blocs and thus preserving an independent identity - and so the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was born.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru at the Bandung Conference in 1955.
Credit: X/@Kanthan2030
The Non-Aligned Movement had a difficult path to tread. While respect for national sovereignty and peaceful co-existence, without external influence in the internal affairs of member nations, was the essence of its core ideology, the newly emerged Third World was also in dire need of support and assistance from the developed nations. This required the members of NAM to be friendly with all, at the same time preventing their freedom from being trampled upon by others.
Though it was a bit confounding and virtually amounted to doing a tight rope walk, it somehow gathered traction, remained relevant for a long time and produced desired results, at least in India’s favour. To this day, albeit with a little tweaked policy, India still follows the doctrine of non-alignment.
Nehru’s words, spoken in 1948 to the Constituent Assembly, “Our instructions to our delegates have always been first to consider each question in terms of India's interest,” find an echo in External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s policy even today.
Panchsheel: A litmus test for idealism
If NAM can be coined as India’s great triumph, then Panchsheel was a lesson which humbled the nation. While NAM helped in putting India’s name on the world map, Panchsheel exposed the perils of utopian ideology and saw the emergence of realpolitik.
In 1954, India turned its attention towards its Eastern neighbour—China and in the spirit of friendship and peaceful co-existence, both countries announced the doctrine of Panchsheel or the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence.
Though noble in nature, the Panchsheel agreement didn’t bode well for the country. China’s annexation of Tibet and its aim to conquer Aksai Chin region as well as parts of Arunachal Pradesh quickly soured relations between the two.
The tensions heightened to such an extent, that China launched a massive invasion on both the regions in 1962. Though the conflict was rising, this swift attack caught India unawares especially since it came during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Indian and Chinese soldiers face off during Sino-Indian border dispute.
Credit: X/@IndiaHistorypic
Defeated and decimated, India had to ask for help from other countries which severely dented its image abroad. The war also brought to the fore India’s gaping hole in defence expenditure and its dire need to pour resources into the sector.
Whether Nehru believed that bilateral agreements could act as a deterrent for war or whether his ideological reasoning confounded his judgment, the Panchsheel agreement taught the country one important lesson: in order to follow the policy of NAM, India needed to become self-reliant.
The policy of NAM wasn’t divorced from reality. If India was insistent in its stance of sitting on the fence and not choosing sides, while other countries were engaged in conflicts with each other, then we needed to realise that the same treatment will be meted out to us in case we too are faced with a conflict-like situation.
Thus, being equidistant came at a huge price. India might not have created any enemies but we certainly didn’t make any lasting friends who would stand up for our cause in our crisis.
It dawned upon our leadership that if we didn’t want to be entangled in the superpowers’ brawl and also didn’t want to run to them for help when trouble came knocking on our door then only one dependable option left was: self reliance.
Self-reliance is the key to being equidistant.
Indira Gandhi: A new leader rising
Panchsheel wasn’t India’s only lesson---after witnessing two wars and the death of two prime ministers, India once again found itself on the precipice of change and realised that being self-reliant wasn’t just a desire but a much-needed necessity.
Though the plan for becoming Atmanirbhar started with Pandit Nehru, it was his daughter Indira Gandhi who got the ball rolling. If Nehru was needed to herald a new age in India’s history, then Indira Gandhi was needed to define its course.
In 1971, India emerged victorious from a war with Pakistan which also resulted in the formation of a new neighbour in the east—Bangladesh. This war cemented Gandhi’s image as the Iron Lady in the minds of people both at home and abroad.
Post war, in an interview she stated that India had been ‘extremely restrained’ in its approach towards its neighbour but she reiterated that we needed to be ‘alive to our interests and safeguard our security.’
And so it was that even after winning the war, Gandhi remained true to the sentiments and didn’t lower guard. Instead, she strengthened it. Her next hurdle was propelling India to become a nuclear state.
After facing three wars in quick succession and only emerging victorious from one, the leaders realised it was high time to strengthen India’s defence arm. However, the only way to ensure peace was to possess a weapon so powerful that it would act as a deterrent for war.
But making India a nuclear state was a battle of its own. Foreign countries who already possessed nuclear weapons did not want others to have this power as well. And so, they pushed others to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty which would bar those states who did not already have these weapons from acquiring or making them in the future.
Interestingly, the countries who already possessed nuclear weapons didn’t promise to give up their arms; they just said they won’t ‘transfer’ them to others.
Understanding the hypocrisy that was meted out to them, India refused to sign the NPT and immediately began working on their nuclear programme.
Buddha smiles upon India
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the ensuing devastation had heralded a landmark shift in the ways and strategies of all future conflict resolutions and the importance of the doctrine of deterrence was realised by the world. It soon became clear to the leaders of the country that the only way one can ensure security and have a lasting peace was through balance of power.
Thus, though the country still believed in ideals of pacifism, it also realised that being equal in strength was of the utmost importance and this propelled the government to introduce India’s own indigenous nuclear programme.
Under the guidance of Dr Homi Bhabha, India took its first steps towards harnessing nuclear energy. But things came to pass on May 18, 1974, when India conducted an underground nuclear test at Pokhran in the Rajasthan desert codenamed ‘Smiling Buddha.’
This nuclear test was a watershed moment in India’s history as we became the 6th country to join the ranks of the nuclear powers. This was further consolidated subsequently after we conducted a second nuclear test in Pokhran in May 1998.
India conducted its first nuclear test codenamed Smiling Buddha under Indira Gandhi's leadership.
Credit: X/@kcvenugopalmp
Testing India’s resolve
After establishing itself as a nuclear power, India believed that this capability may act as a deterrent for state-on-state war and quell any future conflicts with its hostile neighbours. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. Following the doctrine of bleeding India by a thousand cuts, throughout the years, multiple times, India was provoked by Pakistan mostly under the guise of non-state actors.
In 1999, Pakistani troops disguised as infiltrators, penetrated Kargil which prompted the Indian Army to launch an attack and drive them out of the state. Though we emerged victorious, the Kargil victory came at heavy cost as it resulted in the loss of precious lives of a number of our valiant soldiers.
9 years later, in November 2008, our sovereignty was challenged again when Mumbai became a victim of one of the deadliest terrorist attacks which claimed the lives of 174 people, including 20 security force personnel and 26 foreign nationals. The attacks came to be known as 26/11 and were carried out by the Pakistan-based terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba, actively aided and abetted by the Pakistani State and its Military intelligence, the ISI.
This again was not the last of it as, even after this gruesome massacre, we continued to suffer repeated intrusions from across the border, both by the state as well as the Non-State actors. Over the years tensions increased in the Jammu and Kashmir region with intense cross-border shelling and Pakistani non-state actors masquerading as terrorists, carrying out more horrific acts.
In 2016, 4 terrorists from Jaish-e-Mohammed (a Pakistan-based organisation) carried out an attack against an Indian Army brigade headquarters in Uri. This resulted in the death of 19 Indian soldiers. At the time, it was called the ‘deadliest attack on security forces in Kashmir in two decades.’
Three years later in 2019, Jaish-e-Mohammed once again targeted a CRPF convoy carrying Indian paramilitary personnel. They rammed a car filled with explosives into the convoy killing 40 jawans.
Throughout the years, India has been a victim of Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism. But not once did it strike first. However, the leaders of the nation too realised that in this new nuclear armed world, staying silent and not retaliating also sends the wrong message to the enemy.
Pahalgam: The last straw
In April 2025, tourists from across the country flocked to the Baisaran valley in Pahalgam to enjoy the serenity of Kashmir. Families along with their children were basking in the warm spring sun unaware of the dangers lurking in the forests nearby. This calmness was short lived when five armed men emerged from the trees, reached the crowd of revelling families and turned their lives upside-down forever.
They asked the men whether they were Hindus or Muslims and when those who confirmed the former, they shot them at point-blank range in front of their loved ones. These terrorists who were a part of LeT’s shadow outfit killed 26 people that day. However, they spared the women to send a message to the higher ups.
This brutal attack sent shockwaves across the country and sparked an outpour of grief and rage with many people demanding ‘justice’ and ‘revenge’.
India’s ties with Pakistan, which were already strained to begin with, completely broke down. The gates at Wagah-Attari border were opened to send Pakistani nationals back to their country as the government revoked their visas, halted all trade with Pakistan and revoked the Indus Water Treaty: a lifeline for Pakistan.
Despite our neighbour’s feeble attempts to convince the world that they were not involved in the attack and a ‘grave injustice’ was perpetrated upon them by us. India did not budge. We were convinced in our mind to make Pakistan pay.
For a few days everyone thought that the aforementioned measures were India’s retaliation against Pakistan. Little did anyone know that India was preparing itself for the night of May 7, when Operation Sindoor would be launched.
Operation Sindoor: India’s new defence
Over the years, whenever India’s arm has been twisted by its enemy, it has retaliated but by maintaining true to its ideals of pacifism and restraint.
After 26/11, India was able to capture one of the terrorists involved in the horrific act—Ajmal Kasab, who was later tried, tested and hung for his crimes. At the time, the then government’s main aim was to punish the perpetrators of the crime and make Pakistan take responsibility for its actions.
But this time around, the Narendra Modi-led government changed its tune. On the intervening night of May 6-7, the Indian Armed forces launched a scathing attack and targeted terror launchpads in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), they succeeded in eliminating nine of them.
The aftermath of Operation Sindoor saw intense cross-border firing along the Line of Control, with Pakistan hurtling a barrage of missiles and drones at India, deliberately targeting its military installations and civilian areas. But this time we were prepared.
We learnt from our mistakes in 1962, and what we lacked then we certainly made up for it in time. Over the years, the powers that be realised the importance of investing in defence and tried to expand India’s military and research arm- Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
Strengthening this arm proved to be a major turning point in India as we slowly steered away from importing defence equipment to making them in our own backyard. From inventing missiles like Agni, Prithivi, and BrahMos to developing nuclear submarines like INS Arihant, all this helped India in fending off the recent attack launched by Pakistan and emerge unscathed.
How many cuts will we have to endure?
Time and again we have seen Pakistan inflict grievous wounds upon us. Whether it be under the guise of terroism or an intense attack along the borders, India has always been at the receiving end of Pakistan’s fury.
However, whenever we retaliate or defend ourselves it is Pakistan who feigns innocence and cries ‘terror’. It puts on the mask of a ‘victim’ for the world to see and claims that we are the ones who are inflicting a grave injustice on them.
But historical precedence has shown that Pakistan is an unreliable narrator. Whenever the country is questioned for its role in aiding and abetting terrorists, it absolves itself of all responsibility claiming to know nothing about any terrorist activities taking place on its land.
Moreover, its doctrine of bleeding India with a thousand cuts continues to be its foreign policy.
The question now arises: How many cuts will we have to endure before it is acceptable to declare ‘enough’? How many more people will we have to lose to finally take a stand?
This country was born on the ideals of Gandhism and Nehruism and we have tried to cling to that as much as possible. However, today’s world is very different from the one in 1947. Somewhere along the way, we realised that to compete in this new-age we have to ‘adapt’ our ideals with the changing time.
That does not mean we have abandoned our ideals of pacifism and restraint, it just means that when it comes to terror, we will not hold back at eliminating it.