Modi’s Post-Pahalgam War Rhetoric: Manufacturing Militarism In A Divided India – OpEd
In the wake of tragedy, India’s Prime Minister turns national grief into a call for majoritarian consolidation rather than sober statecraft.
A Nation in Mourning, A Leader in Campaign Mode
The massacre in Pahalgam, where innocent pilgrims of the Amarnath Yatra were brutally attacked, has reignited a familiar cycle of grief and fury across India. Yet amidst this national trauma, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s response has been anything but measured. His thunderous declarations of vengeance, broadcast across the nation, have morphed what could have been a solemn moment of unity into a calculated performance of war rhetoric aimed at deepening majoritarian sentiment and political polarization.
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. But a closer textual and rhetorical analysis of Modi’s statements suggests a deeper political choreography: an orchestration of national anger into a form of aggressive Hindu nationalism that fits squarely within the RSS’s long-cherished vision of a Hindutva-inspired “Hindurashtra.”
Hyperbole Over Strategy: The Anatomy of Modi’s Language
Modi’s post-Pahalgam speeches are heavy with theatrical cadence and emotional manipulation. His choice of words — “enemy within,” “historic retribution,” “final battle” — shifts the discourse from a specific act of terror to a broader civilizational 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 shift is not accidental. It taps 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.
Trump’s Support: A Dangerous Validation
Internationally, Modi’s rhetorical belligerence found a willing amplifier in former U.S. President Donald Trump. In a swift, seemingly offhand remark, Trump endorsed India’s “right to defend itself” and suggested punitive actions against those responsible for the Pahalgam killings. This gave Modi a critical external validation — allowing the BJP narrative 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 served dual purposes: it boosted Modi’s domestic standing by aligning him with the global “war on terror” discourse while offering the illusion of international impunity for aggressive actions against Pakistan. Yet, this rhetorical alignment, forged on populist impulses rather than strategic calculations, risks pushing India further down the path of militaristic bravado without securing any sustainable gains.
China’s Cool Counsel: A Stark Contrast
Against the backdrop of Trump’s endorsement, China struck a markedly 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, underscored the serious risks of unchecked escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbours.
Wang Yi’s intervention subtly highlighted the larger geopolitical stakes that Modi’s rhetoric appeared to ignore: that any reckless escalation would not only destabilize South Asia but also jeopardize Beijing’s own strategic and economic interests in the region. In the grand chessboard of Asian geopolitics, China’s cool-headed warning stood as a sobering counterpoint to the fevered nationalism gripping New Delhi.
Rhetoric for the Electorate, Not the Battlefield
Despite Modi’s muscular rhetoric, India’s military establishment has shown no indication of planning for full-scale war. Past precedents after Pulwama and Uri suggest that any retaliation is likely to be surgical, symbolic, and carefully calibrated. The dissonance between Modi’s fiery public speeches and the military’s cautious planning reveals the essential truth: 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 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 mobilization.
From External Enemy to Internal Witch-Hunt
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 subtly weaponize grief to justify political repression. The rhetoric not only demonizes Pakistan but implicates India’s own Muslim minority and political critics as potential traitors — a classic manoeuvre from the authoritarian populist playbook.
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 post-Pahalgam rhetoric thus marks not merely a tactical response to terror but a deepening shift toward illiberalism.
Strategic Myopia and the Peril of Illusions
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.
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.
Grief as Spectacle, Democracy as Casualty
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, it is said, are rarely defeated by the enemies they demonize. More often, they are undone by the illusions they nurture about themselves. In weaponizing grief and manufacturing militarism, Modi risks hollowing out the very idea of India he claims to defend — leaving behind only the echo of drums in an increasingly empty square.
