India’s increasingly assertive stance on national security, as epitomized by its recent Operation Sindoor, has drawn considerable international attention—none more so than the ringing endorsement by Freddy Svane, former Danish Ambassador to India. Speaking in the aftermath of a harrowing terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam region, Svane’s approval of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership represents a growing trend: Western diplomatic admiration for India’s evolving counter-terrorism doctrine. But behind this praise lies a complex web of geopolitical calculation, domestic imperatives, and ongoing international debate about the right balance between hardline security and broader peace initiatives.
For decades, India’s response to cross-border terrorism was frequently characterized as “strategic restraint.” While the country repeatedly endured high-profile attacks, particularly from groups believed to be operating from Pakistani soil, its military and diplomatic countermeasures were often measured and prioritized dialogue. However, a string of attacks in the late 2010s and early 2020s, culminating in high-casualty incidents such as Pahalgam, tested this doctrine to breaking point.
Operation Sindoor, conducted in response to the Pahalgam attack, marked another chapter in India’s move towards overt, calibrated retaliation. By combining precision strikes with an aggressive global diplomatic campaign—targeting what New Delhi terms “Pakistan-sponsored terror”—India sought to not only punish wrongdoers but also control the broader narrative. This hybrid approach was widely covered in the regional and Western media, with leaders like Freddy Svane articulating support for both the operational and political facets of the strategy.
This focus on strong, centralized leadership resonates not only domestically but also with segments of the international community wary of unchecked extremist violence in South Asia. The praise from foreign diplomats, especially from the European Union, underscores a slowly shifting calculus: India is increasingly viewed as an indispensable bulwark against both terrorism and the spillover of instability into neighboring regions.
However, this “leader-as-defender” narrative is not without its perils. Critics warn that over-personalization can drive policymaking into the realm of symbolism at the expense of substantive reform. Furthermore, it risks escalating the spiral of tit-for-tat violence, should retaliation be prioritized over careful, intelligence-driven investigation.
At the United Nations Security Council and in forums like FATF (Financial Action Task Force), these efforts have translated into increased pressure on Islamabad to reform its counter-terrorism policies and curb illicit financial flows to non-state actors. India’s strategy of deploying all-party delegations to key world capitals, a move cited approvingly by Svane, has helped maintain momentum and solidarity at the diplomatic level.
Yet, skepticism and calls for restraint persist. Human rights organizations—including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and India’s own NHRC—caution against the potential for civilian harm, unintended escalation, and long-term erosion of civil liberties. They argue that military action, while important, needs to be accompanied by renewed efforts at dialogue, economic investment in conflict zones, and the protection of minority rights.
Internationally, the prevailing mood has shifted more in favor of India's interpretation in the wake of repeated attacks, but major powers such as China and some Muslim-majority countries maintain ambivalence or outright skepticism. Beijing’s role as a “protector” of Islamabad at the UN, particularly in discussions about blacklisting specific terrorist individuals and entities, remains a source of friction between India and China.
Western intelligence officials, speaking anonymously to outlets such as Reuters and The New York Times, broadly support Indian claims of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-administered territory, though the precise chain of command and degree of state patronage is more difficult to establish.
Freddy Svane’s supportive comments reflect a growing European willingness to at least consider these claims seriously. According to Svane, “the move to all-party delegations to various parts of the world will surely achieve its purpose,” referring to the way India has engaged not only government but also parliamentary and civil society leaders abroad.
Outcomes to date suggest that this approach, while not always delivering immediate policy changes from Pakistan’s supporters, has contributed to greater scrutiny of Islamabad’s record and increased pressure to align with international counter-terror financing norms. The U.S. and U.K., in particular, have both lauded India’s outreach, though both have stopped short of abandoning their strategic ties with Pakistan.
However, it’s crucial to note that even among Europe’s political classes, consensus is far from universal. While Svane and likeminded diplomats urge resolute action and robust alliance-building against terrorism, other voices—particularly those in Nordic and Western European civil society—continue to emphasize transparency, dialogue, and peacebuilding as lasting solutions.
Yet, as the dust settles, key challenges remain. Sustaining international support will depend on India’s success in balancing muscular security measures with credible peace-building initiatives. The country must actively guard against overreach, ensuring that short-term tactical victories do not translate into long-term strategic setbacks.
For Western audiences and policymakers looking to South Asia, the lesson is clear but nuanced: while robust Indian action against terror confounds long-held stereotypes of passivity, the strategic implications are broad and require constant recalibration. As new facts emerge and as regional equations evolve, the full impact of India’s new security doctrine—praised for now by voices like Freddy Svane—will demand careful, ongoing scrutiny.
In the end, India’s dual challenge is to defend its citizens and territorial integrity while upholding the democratic standards and constitutional values that have underpinned its global rise. The world, at least for now, seems to recognize both the progress and the peril inherent in walking this narrow path.
Source: lokmattimes.com Former Danish envoy praises PM Modi for Op Sindoor, calls him true defender of India - www.lokmattimes.com
India’s Changing Playbook: From Strategic Restraint to Visible Retaliation
For decades, India’s response to cross-border terrorism was frequently characterized as “strategic restraint.” While the country repeatedly endured high-profile attacks, particularly from groups believed to be operating from Pakistani soil, its military and diplomatic countermeasures were often measured and prioritized dialogue. However, a string of attacks in the late 2010s and early 2020s, culminating in high-casualty incidents such as Pahalgam, tested this doctrine to breaking point.Operation Sindoor, conducted in response to the Pahalgam attack, marked another chapter in India’s move towards overt, calibrated retaliation. By combining precision strikes with an aggressive global diplomatic campaign—targeting what New Delhi terms “Pakistan-sponsored terror”—India sought to not only punish wrongdoers but also control the broader narrative. This hybrid approach was widely covered in the regional and Western media, with leaders like Freddy Svane articulating support for both the operational and political facets of the strategy.
The Modi Doctrine: Personal Leadership in National Security
Svane’s remarks to the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS), as reported by Lokmat Times, highlight a key theme: the personalization of India’s security policy around Prime Minister Modi. According to Svane, “India has shown that it has grown as a global and very, very important player and that it can take action. You need a strong leader like Prime Minister Narendra Modi who can steer that kind of direction and make it clear to the world that I am the man and I am the true defender of India.”This focus on strong, centralized leadership resonates not only domestically but also with segments of the international community wary of unchecked extremist violence in South Asia. The praise from foreign diplomats, especially from the European Union, underscores a slowly shifting calculus: India is increasingly viewed as an indispensable bulwark against both terrorism and the spillover of instability into neighboring regions.
However, this “leader-as-defender” narrative is not without its perils. Critics warn that over-personalization can drive policymaking into the realm of symbolism at the expense of substantive reform. Furthermore, it risks escalating the spiral of tit-for-tat violence, should retaliation be prioritized over careful, intelligence-driven investigation.
Global Reaction: Sympathy, Support, and Skepticism
India’s efforts to draw international attention to its security challenges have found notable resonance in both Washington and many European capitals. Apart from Denmark’s Svane, diplomats and policymakers in the U.S., U.K., France, and Australia have made repeated statements condemning terrorist attacks on Indian targets and urging Pakistan to crack down on groups operating within its borders.At the United Nations Security Council and in forums like FATF (Financial Action Task Force), these efforts have translated into increased pressure on Islamabad to reform its counter-terrorism policies and curb illicit financial flows to non-state actors. India’s strategy of deploying all-party delegations to key world capitals, a move cited approvingly by Svane, has helped maintain momentum and solidarity at the diplomatic level.
Yet, skepticism and calls for restraint persist. Human rights organizations—including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and India’s own NHRC—caution against the potential for civilian harm, unintended escalation, and long-term erosion of civil liberties. They argue that military action, while important, needs to be accompanied by renewed efforts at dialogue, economic investment in conflict zones, and the protection of minority rights.
The Pakistan Factor: Enduring Tensions and International Repercussions
Pakistan remains central to both the problem and the solution. Former Ambassador Svane’s blunt assessment—accusing Pakistan of “constant abetment and instigation of terror on foreign soil”—matches the long-held Indian narrative but continues to be hotly disputed by Islamabad. Pakistani officials routinely deny supporting terrorist proxies, countering that India’s claims are motivated by domestic politics and an attempt to draw attention away from alleged human rights abuses in Kashmir.Internationally, the prevailing mood has shifted more in favor of India's interpretation in the wake of repeated attacks, but major powers such as China and some Muslim-majority countries maintain ambivalence or outright skepticism. Beijing’s role as a “protector” of Islamabad at the UN, particularly in discussions about blacklisting specific terrorist individuals and entities, remains a source of friction between India and China.
Operation Sindoor: Facts, Impact, and Verification
Though details about Operation Sindoor remain partly classified, informed reporting and multiple government statements provide a reasonably clear outline of the operation:- Target and Scope: The operation was launched in response to the Pahalgam attack, which saw fatalities among security personnel and civilians. Indian forces targeted alleged terrorist launch pads and logistics nodes close to the Line of Control.
- Methods: A combination of air strikes, artillery barrages, and cross-border commando raids was deployed, with Indian officials claiming minimal collateral damage to civilian infrastructure.
- Diplomatic Follow-Up: Indian envoys undertook a coordinated effort to brief key global capitals and multilateral agencies, framing Pakistan’s alleged support for the attackers as part of a broader problem requiring international censure.
Western intelligence officials, speaking anonymously to outlets such as Reuters and The New York Times, broadly support Indian claims of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-administered territory, though the precise chain of command and degree of state patronage is more difficult to establish.
The Diplomacy of Naming and Shaming
India’s “name and shame” campaign, actively championed during recent global summits and UN discussions, marks a departure from older, more circumspect diplomatic strategies. Instead, New Delhi has chosen to foreground alleged evidence, sometimes even providing intercepted communications or satellite imagery, in an effort to convince skeptical global partners.Freddy Svane’s supportive comments reflect a growing European willingness to at least consider these claims seriously. According to Svane, “the move to all-party delegations to various parts of the world will surely achieve its purpose,” referring to the way India has engaged not only government but also parliamentary and civil society leaders abroad.
Outcomes to date suggest that this approach, while not always delivering immediate policy changes from Pakistan’s supporters, has contributed to greater scrutiny of Islamabad’s record and increased pressure to align with international counter-terror financing norms. The U.S. and U.K., in particular, have both lauded India’s outreach, though both have stopped short of abandoning their strategic ties with Pakistan.
Strategic Outcomes for India
India’s actions post-Pahalgam and the international reaction—including praise from figures like Svane—have had a number of measurable effects:- Enhanced Global Standing: India’s claims to being a responsible global power and strategic partner, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, have found new credibility in Western capitals.
- Internal Political Consolidation: Modi’s personal popularity, particularly as a security-focused leader, has solidified his dominance over domestic rivals, as observers have noted in both Indian and international media commentary.
- Increased Security Cooperation: Intelligence and counterterrorism-sharing arrangements with the U.S., Israel, France, and Australia have deepened, with India participating in more joint exercises and multilateral anti-terror initiatives.
Table: Key Elements of Post-Pahalgam Indian National Security Doctrine
| Element | Description | International Reaction |
|---|---|---|
| Hard Power | Surgical strikes and targeted retaliatory operations | Mixed approval |
| Diplomacy | Global campaign to isolate terror supporters, name and shame approach | Growing consensus |
| Legal Measures | Tougher anti-terror laws, FATF compliance, asset freezes | Western backing |
| Economic Outreach | Infrastructure investment in conflict regions, increased local development | Conditional positive response |
| Information Ops | Strategic communication, social media campaigns | Some skepticism |
Critical Analysis: Strengths and Risks
India’s response, as embodied in Operation Sindoor and subsequent diplomacy, showcases several core strengths:- Clarity and Decisiveness: The shift away from ambiguous responses to a more direct, accountable approach has allowed India to communicate intentions clearly to adversaries and partners alike.
- Integration of Diplomatic and Military Tools: Rather than acting in silos, New Delhi’s ministries now coordinate actions more effectively, amplifying their international impact.
- Strategic Partnership Building: By consistently engaging with selective global powers and multilateral agencies, India has positioned itself as a bridge between the West and the Global South.
- Escalation Trap: Each round of retaliation—however surgical—raises the risk of miscalculation, accidental war, or civilian casualties, particularly given the density of population along the Line of Control.
- Erosion of Civil Liberties: Increased securitization, including stricter laws and expanded surveillance, could undermine India’s commitment to due process and minority rights, fueling domestic dissent.
- Diplomatic Fatigue: While current international sympathy is high, protracted focus on security at the expense of economic or developmental issues could alienate wavering partners and diminish soft power.
The Svane Perspective In Global Context
The high-profile endorsement from Freddy Svane, amplified by Indian and international media outlets, brings to light the extent to which Western perceptions of India are shaped by both admiration and expectation. In lauding Modi as a “true defender of India,” Svane echoes a sentiment evident among certain sections of the diplomatic and security elite: that strong, personal leadership remains essential in an age of volatile, unpredictable threats.However, it’s crucial to note that even among Europe’s political classes, consensus is far from universal. While Svane and likeminded diplomats urge resolute action and robust alliance-building against terrorism, other voices—particularly those in Nordic and Western European civil society—continue to emphasize transparency, dialogue, and peacebuilding as lasting solutions.
The Road Ahead: Security, Diplomacy, and India’s Global Image
Operation Sindoor and the international reaction illustrate the evolving parameters of India’s security doctrine under Modi’s leadership. The substantial endorsement from the likes of Freddy Svane underscores two interlocking realities: India’s rising global clout, and the world’s acute sensitivity to the twin threats of state-sponsored terror and regional instability.Yet, as the dust settles, key challenges remain. Sustaining international support will depend on India’s success in balancing muscular security measures with credible peace-building initiatives. The country must actively guard against overreach, ensuring that short-term tactical victories do not translate into long-term strategic setbacks.
For Western audiences and policymakers looking to South Asia, the lesson is clear but nuanced: while robust Indian action against terror confounds long-held stereotypes of passivity, the strategic implications are broad and require constant recalibration. As new facts emerge and as regional equations evolve, the full impact of India’s new security doctrine—praised for now by voices like Freddy Svane—will demand careful, ongoing scrutiny.
In the end, India’s dual challenge is to defend its citizens and territorial integrity while upholding the democratic standards and constitutional values that have underpinned its global rise. The world, at least for now, seems to recognize both the progress and the peril inherent in walking this narrow path.
Source: lokmattimes.com Former Danish envoy praises PM Modi for Op Sindoor, calls him true defender of India - www.lokmattimes.com
