In the immediate aftermath of the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam (Indian occupied Kashmir), before facts were fully established and investigations complete — Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government swiftly pointed fingers at Pakistan. More troubling, however, was Modi’s reckless bravado: public posturing that an attack on Pakistan was imminent. While some in his domestic audience may have welcomed this belligerence, a deeper analysis reveals that Modi has, in fact, set a trap for himself — one rooted in a political culture of impulsive aggression and false flag terrorist attacks fostered by his lifelong affiliation with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Modi’s Imprudent Rhetoric: The Strategic Misstep
When a head of government openly claims he will attack another nuclear-armed country, he invites three immediate consequences:
- Loss of Strategic Surprise: In subcontinental crises, (e.g., Kargil, Balakot) Modi’s statements may not have been a pure strategic misstep but rather part of calibrated political posturing (unwise it may be.) However, by signaling his intentions publicly, India’s Cold Start is off the table because “Cold Start’s effectiveness hinges on the ability to mobilize and initiate offensive operations [‘strike within 48–72 hours of provocation’] before either international intervention can occur or the adversary can mobilize a coherent defense.” –Walter C. Ladwig. What remains is an option of ill-founded skirmish like Balakot or a hot war. For a hot war, “India is a ‘target-rich’ country and as such provides Pakistani planners with a large variety of choices in targeting strategies. Indian analysts have noted the point.” –Lt. Gen. Kidwai. A hot war will likely end Modi’s political career.
- Diplomatic Isolation: India is a Quad member. Therefore, Modi’s rhetoric risks diplomatic discomfort, not isolation. Allies may privately caution restraint, but India’s strategic relevance insulates it from real fallout — even if its actions cross norms of proportionality and legality. However, by running his mouth prematurely, Modi boxed India into a diplomatic corner where any escalation would now be seen internationally as Indian aggression, not legitimate self-defense. For India’s key allies, Modi’s moves are realist geopolitics, 2019 Balakot precedent.
- Domestic Expectations and Tragic Blowback: Having whipped up nationalist fervor, Modi now faces an unforgiving domestic audience demanding immediate action. If he attacks and the results are inconclusive or costly, he risks appearing weak. If he does not attack, he risks looking even weaker. Either path diminishes his political stature at home — an outcome entirely of his own making.
In effect, Modi’s imprudent rhetoric weaponized public expectation against himself.
The RSS Connection: Ideology over Intelligence
To understand why Modi would behave so rashly, we must understand the intellectual environment that shaped him: the RSS. Founded in 1925, the RSS promotes a vision of India rooted in a militant, homogenizing nationalism that prizes display of strength over diplomatic subtlety. Several characteristics of RSS indoctrination are relevant here:
- Reaction over Reflection: The RSS idealizes a hyper-masculine response to perceived insults or injuries to the “nation.” In this worldview, deliberation is equated with weakness; retaliation, however ill-conceived, is seen as strength. Modi, steeped in this thinking since his teenage years, naturally privileges action over analysis.
- Simplistic Narratives: The RSS inculcates a black-and-white view of the world: “we” are righteous; “they” are evil. Complex geopolitical realities — such as non-state actors operating in Pakistan without full state control — are flattened into crude binaries. Thus, any terrorist attack in Kashmir, regardless of evidence, must be Pakistan’s fault, deserving immediate retribution.
- Disregard for Global Opinion: Deeply suspicious of “Western” institutions and international bodies, the RSS ethos minimizes the importance of world opinion. This makes Modi less sensitive to the costs of reckless talk, wrongly assuming that India’s size alone will shield it from diplomatic backlash.
Thus, Modi’s trap is not merely personal; it is ideological. His rash threats to attack Pakistan are not aberrations but logical extensions of a worldview that prizes symbolic chest-thumping over strategic patience.
If Modi Strikes: Why India’s War Gamble Could Trigger a Nuclear Catastrophe and Global Humiliation
In the charged atmosphere following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has postured loudly, hinting at surgical strikes or even broader military retaliation against Pakistan. While some see this as political theater, the threat of real action cannot be dismissed outright. Modi’s RSS-fueled machismo, a supportive Israeli-influenced defense doctrine, and the geopolitical backing of the United States all create the illusion of impunity.
But if Modi pulls the trigger, he is not just playing with fire — he is inviting a regional war with nuclear consequences.
Israel’s Imprint, America’s Silence: A Dangerous Illusion of Power
India’s military doctrine has increasingly mirrored Israeli-style operations — targeted airstrikes, media-dominant narratives, and aggressive rules of engagement in disputed territories. The idea is to signal dominance without triggering full-scale war. But this “Gaza playbook” doesn’t transfer neatly to South Asia, where Pakistan’s strategic calculus is vastly different and more volatile.
The Indian military, emboldened by defense partnerships with Israel and strategic backing from the U.S., may believe it can conduct punitive action with minimal consequence. But this is where the illusion becomes a trap. Washington’s dream of using India to “contain China” has fostered a dangerous permissiveness — one that mistakes Indian nationalism for strategic maturity. The U.S. lives in a fool’s paradise, imagining India as a rational counterweight to China while ignoring the deep extremism and irrationality baked into its ruling ideology.
The Army Under Pressure: Asim Munir’s Point of No Return
If India launches a surgical strike — whether symbolic or significant — Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, cannot afford to remain passive. Gen. Asim Munir is likely to welcome Modi created crises to help with his domestic acceptance.
The Pakistani military, long criticized for human rights violations, enforced disappearances, and domestic crackdowns, faces growing internal and external legitimacy crises. If Asim Munir allows Indian aggression without a forceful military response, it won’t just be his reputation on the line — it could be his very survival. In Pakistan’s volatile civil-military balance, passivity in the face of external threats is political suicide.
To remain in power, Munir must respond. Anything less will invite his dismissal and potentially legal retribution from a future civilian government eager to uphold justice with a military establishment tainted by repression.
Military Data: What a War Would Look Like
India does enjoy the numbers conventional superiority over Pakistan:
- Active Troops: India (~1.45 million) vs. Pakistan (~654,000)
- Combat Aircraft: India (~600) vs. Pakistan (~350)
- Defense Budget: India ($81B) vs. Pakistan ($10B)
But this superiority is misleading. India is not poised for a long, drawn-out war. Its logistics, ammunition stockpiles, and high attrition risk make it capable of short, localized operations — not prolonged occupation or sustained conflict across multiple fronts.
In contrast, Pakistan plans for a short war, with a strategy that explicitly accounts for the possibility of escalating to the nuclear threshold early if its conventional defenses begin to weaken. Nonetheless, during one of our engagements, Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai expressed continued hope, “I am confident that India’s verbal threats will remain just that — verbal threats — because Pakistan’s strong nuclear capability, combined with its robust conventional forces, has largely foreclosed most of India’s kinetic military options.”
In fact, India’s own 2004 Cold Start Doctrine was designed around this logic: rapid, punitive strikes that stay below the nuclear threshold. But Pakistan responded by lowering that threshold, integrating tactical nuclear weapons and zero-meter range into its 2011, Full Spectrum Deterrence doctrine. Now, even a limited Indian attack carries the risk of spiraling into an existential crisis.
I had posed a question to Lt. Gen. Kidwai,
Question – How effectively Pakistan or India can fold the matters neatly after Pakistan’s make use of Tactical Nuclear Weapon (TNW)?
Answer: “The question is based on a questionable assumption that Pakistan will make use of the TNW first, and therefore what ‘neatness’ might follow thereafter. Dynamics of war and operations are unpredictable and do not follow any ‘neat’ sequence of events. The war in Ukraine is a good example.”
I had posed a question to the late spy master Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul,
Question – How will Pakistan defend against the Cold Start Doctrine?
Answer: “The tactical nukes will destroy the Indian armored formation, [just like that], poof.”
A Conventional War Is Not Containable
Modi’s RSS-influenced base may cheer a strike, but they forget that unlike previous episodes, Pakistan’s options are no longer limited to diplomatic protest or artillery duels. The psychological climate within the Pakistan Army has changed. This is not 2016 (Uri attack on Indian army base). More likely, it is an escalated repeat of Balakot-Rajauri skirmish of February 2019, with a chance of a likely escalation where both countries drifted into the 1965 War. The leadership is under existential pressure, and Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent is not decorative.
Any prolonged conventional war risks:
- Rapid escalation;
- Collapse of diplomatic channels;
- Crossing of the nuclear threshold; and
- Global economic and humanitarian fallout.
Modi might believe that his U.S.-enabled stature grants him immunity. But in the event of war, Washington will not be able to bail him out — not politically, not militarily, and certainly not diplomatically once mushroom clouds become a realistic possibility.
The Political Cost of Silence
Herein lies Modi’s real dilemma. If he remains silent, he will lose the momentum of nationalism that his BJP needs for the 2025 elections. The same RSS machine that elevated him to power thrives on enemies, real or imagined. Silence now would not be seen as statesmanship, but as surrender — something his carefully constructed image cannot survive.
He is trapped:
- Act, and risk dragging South Asia to the brink of nuclear war.
- Refrain, and watch his political empire begin to crumble.
The American Delusion
America’s choice of India as a “democratic bulwark” against China was always based on illusion. India under Modi is not a liberal democracy — it is a majoritarian state in the throes of ideological extremism. Washington’s tolerance of Modi’s escalatory rhetoric and crackdowns has emboldened him, not moderated him.
If the U.S. believes India can contain China while staying stable and peaceful, it is betting on a mirage. In reality, India may drag the U.S. into a conflict not with China — but with a desperate nuclear Pakistan.
Final Word: War is Not a Game Show
The men who sit in New Delhi and talk about surgical strikes like they’re scenes from a Bollywood war movie do not understand the stakes from a trailer they saw in 2019, Balakot where India lost fighter jets and an IAF pilot captured by Pakistan and returned him after serving ‘a good cup of tea.’ A war between India and Pakistan is not a popularity contest, a chest-thumping rally, or an RSS youth camp fantasy.
It is a razor’s edge — and Modi, with his loose mouth and delusional bravado, may be pushing the entire region toward a cliff from which there will be no return.
Conclusion:
The Irony of Hubris: By succumbing to the instincts inculcated by his RSS background, Modi has undermined India’s strategic posture at a critical time. He has elevated emotion over reason, slogans over strategy — and in doing so, he has built a trap from which there are no easy exits.
A true leader knows when to speak, but more importantly, when to stay silent. Modi’s failure to recognize this has not only weakened India’s hand internationally but also exposed the intellectual poverty of the RSS’s brand of politics when confronted with the complexities of modern statecraft.
The ultimate irony is clear: in trying to appear strong, Modi has made India — and himself — vulnerable.
Bio: Mian Hameed is the author of MANIPULATION OF THE MIND: Our Children and Our Policy at Peril. He is a student of the U.S. and South Asia foreign policy. My articles do not present the conventional thoughts of the mainstream media. To read my work, click the Home link below.