The terror assault on vacationers in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam in April sparked not solely official condemnations from world leaders but in addition stirred a strong emotional present throughout India. The nationwide temper was awash with grief, anger, and a thirst for justice. In response, New Delhi enacted a collection of swift diplomatic measures: suspending the Indus Water Treaty, shutting down the border at Attari, lowering the power of diplomatic missions, and signalling a hardened stance in opposition to cross-border hostility. Nonetheless, it was the launch of Operation Sindoor—India’s army marketing campaign focusing on terror launchpads and infrastructure—that the majority viscerally embodied the nationwide sentiment. Framed not merely as a strategic necessity however as an ethical crucial, the operation marked a big escalation, one fuelled by collective anguish and the deeply felt want to revive nationwide dignity. These actions, whereas calculated, had been additionally profoundly emotional—charged with a way of collective damage and the pressing have to reaffirm India’s resolve and honour on the worldwide stage. Moments like these reveal an essential, usually missed dimension of international coverage: the position of feelings.
Conventional theories in Worldwide Relations (IR) usually scale back state behaviour to strategic calculations of energy and curiosity. But, feelings—significantly these tied to nationwide id and honour, form how states understand threats and mission their energy. India isn’t any exception. This text poses a central query: How do feelings, particularly nationwide honour, form India’s international coverage? By means of an examination of pivotal moments reminiscent of Operation Sindoor and the Balakot airstrikes, and the discourse surrounding India’s world aspirations, this piece argues that nationwide honour features not simply as a rhetorical machine, however as a strong pressure in shaping strategic selections, diplomatic posture, and public legitimacy.
In recent times, feelings have turn out to be central to IR idea and observe, providing deeper perception into the complicated motivations behind state behaviour. Students like Emma Hutchison argue that feelings should not solely inevitable in human affairs however are additionally “intrinsically linked to, and imbued inside, the discourses and social buildings that underpin societies and their politics.” Whereas the so-called ‘emotional flip’ in IR emerged over a decade in the past, the international coverage selections of India’s strategic elites have but to be totally examined by way of this lens.
Indian international coverage, historically interpreted by way of the lenses of strategic realism or materials energy, calls for a extra textured studying. In Indian International Coverage: The Politics of Postcolonial Id from 1947 to 2004, Priya Chacko strikes past such standard frameworks, arguing that Indian international coverage is finest understood as postcoloniality—a self-reflective, ethically-driven mission rooted within the expertise of colonialism. She posits that Indian international coverage isn’t just about exterior relations, however a discursive website the place the state performs its id: a civilizational actor with an ethical mission and a historical past of resisting imperial subjugation. This id, as she underscores, isn’t just mental or ideological. It’s deeply emotional.
On the coronary heart of this id lies the thought of nationwide honour—an emotive idea by way of which India interprets world hierarchies, responds to exterior threats, and asserts its ethical company. From a postcolonial perspective, nationwide honour features as a strong emotional register formed by historic reminiscence, collective grievance, and a permanent want for recognition and standing. It’s invoked not solely in response to violence or provocation, but in addition as an lively assertion of India’s civilizational distinctiveness and strategic autonomy. In moments of geopolitical pressure, New Delhi usually attracts upon narratives steeped in honour to bolster its sovereignty and legitimacy, mobilizing each state rhetoric and public sentiment.
The efficiency of nationwide honour in Indian international coverage is especially seen within the emotionally charged speeches and statements of political elites. These are moments the place statecraft intersects with sentiment; the place the language of diplomacy blends with the language of satisfaction, grief, vengeance, and collective resolve. Following the fear assault in Pahalgam, Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde declared, “The sport has been began by Pakistan, however we’re assured that it will likely be ended by Indian jawans. There might be response to motion, blood for blood, brick for a brick. Such is the valour of our troopers.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi echoed this stating, “India will establish, monitor and punish each terrorist and their backers. India’s spirit won’t ever be damaged by terrorism. Terrorism won’t go unpunished. Your complete nation is agency on this resolve.”
Within the days that adopted, this emotional resolve translated into concrete motion with the launch of Operation Sindoor—a precision army strike focusing on terrorist infrastructure throughout the Line of Management. Whereas framed formally as a focused safety operation, its timing and messaging carried highly effective emotional overtones. The operation was portrayed because the nation’s direct response to grief and fury, an act of ethical reckoning fairly than mere tactical retaliation. In his public handle capturing the temper of a nation unwilling to tolerate additional provocation, Modi expressed the emotional engine propelling the state’s actions:
Operation Sindoor isn’t just a reputation but it surely’s a mirrored image of the emotions of thousands and thousands of individuals of the nation. Operation ‘Sindoor’ is our unwavering dedication to justice. India will strike on the roots of terror, with out hesitation, with out worry.
Such rhetoric will not be new. Modi’s statements following the 2019 Balakot airstrikes equally invoked India’s transformation right into a nation now not prepared to soak up blows: “This new Bharat doesn’t endure terrorism, fairly it inflicts critical harm upon perpetrators. The individuals who used to terrorise us are nowhere now.” In his 2021 Independence Day handle, he invoked the 2016 surgical strikes as emblematic of India’s assertive new posture:
India is combating the dual challenges of terrorism and expansionism with nice braveness, and doesn’t hesitate in taking powerful selections. By conducting surgical and air strikes, the nation despatched out the message of ‘New India.’
The emotional resonance of honour can also be evident in India’s dealing with of border conflicts, significantly with China. Throughout his 2020 go to to Leh, after the lethal Galwan Valley conflict, Modi paid tribute to the Indian troopers, stating: “By means of show of your bravery, a transparent message has gone to the world about India’s power. Your braveness is larger than the heights the place you might be posted at present.” These remarks captured the essence of an emotional international coverage—one which pairs army restraint with rhetorical assertiveness. In each the 2017 Doklam standoff and the Galwan incident, political messaging emphasised sovereignty, resilience, and the reminiscence of betrayal, whilst India averted open army escalation.
The Indian media has additionally performed a big position in amplifying these narratives. Following the 2019 Balakot strikes, media protection overwhelmingly embraced the federal government’s framing of the operation as an act of justified retribution. Shops employed emotionally charged language, framing the airstrikes as a restoration of satisfaction and an illustration of India’s ethical and strategic resolve. Instances of India proclaimed that India had “damaged freed from its shackles,” whereas Dainik Bhaskar hailed the second as historic, noting that it was the primary time in almost 5 many years that the Indian Air Pressure had crossed the Pakistan border. These portrayals didn’t merely report occasions however they formed public notion and intensified nationwide sentiment, reinforcing the concept that the Indian state was performing to guard and vindicate nationwide honour.
Throughout these episodes, from cross-border strikes to diplomatic messaging, India’s international coverage seems not simply as a collection of strategic responses, however as a steady efficiency of id. Feelings, significantly these tied to honour should not incidental, however are constitutive. They serve to unify home audiences, assert India’s world posture, and reframe geopolitical conflicts as ethical imperatives. On this sense, emotion features as a strategic software of statecraft—rational, potent, and deeply rooted within the narratives that outline trendy India’s place on this planet.
India’s international coverage discourse is infused with emotionally resonant language that ties state actions to nationwide psychology and justifies assertiveness. These emotional narratives unfold in a extremely mediated surroundings, the place media reinforces state messaging and create a suggestions loop between public sentiment and coverage indicators. But, this emotional flip carries each dangers and rewards. Whereas it strengthens cohesion and legitimacy, it may well additionally escalate conflicts, scale back diplomatic flexibility, and promote zero-sum pondering. When honour dominates, compromise can seem as weak spot. Nonetheless, emotional id helps clarify why India usually prioritizes recognition, moral positioning, and narrative management over uncooked materials curiosity. Recognizing these emotional undercurrents reveals a extra layered, human understanding of how India engages the world. States don’t simply pursue pursuits—they carry out identities. And in India’s case, that efficiency is deeply emotional, traditionally grounded, and intentionally proud.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
