Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address to the nation on 12 May, following the successful conclusion of the initial phase of Operation Sindoor, marked a defining moment in India’s strategic and communicative history. It was more than just a message of military achievement—it was a masterclass in clarity, vision, and the art of statecraft. With calm resolve and calibrated conviction, the speech articulated a new national paradigm: India seeks peace, but only through strength.
In many ways, the speech exemplified the Indian communication model of sadharanikaran—a concept that goes beyond mere transmission of information to establish a shared understanding between the communicator and the audience. Drawing from this tradition, Modi’s address fused ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic) to create a seamless narrative that resonated across diverse audiences—domestic citizens, international observers, and adversarial states alike.
Strategic clarity
At the heart of Modi’s speech was an unambiguous message: India will no longer be restrained by the threat of nuclear escalation when responding to terrorism. By openly rejecting Pakistan’s long-standing tactic of nuclear blackmail, the PM reframed the security discourse—not as a reactive posture, but as a proactive doctrine of deterrence. He declared that India’s future responses would be calibrated not by provocation alone, but by a strategic commitment to dismantling the very roots of terror.
This clarity cut through years of diplomatic ambiguity. It marked a departure from earlier doctrines that sought international validation or adopted a wait-and-watch approach. The new message was simple, yet powerful: India will act—decisively, independently, and with legitimacy.
In a measured yet firm tone, Modi also addressed global power equations. In response to claims from the United States that it played a role in brokering the ceasefire, Modi made it clear that India’s actions were dictated solely by national interest. The decision to pause Operation Sindoor, he explained, came only after Pakistan’s terror infrastructure had been “decisively neutralised”.
This was not just a rejection of American self-congratulation—it was a subtle rebalancing of global narratives. While acknowledging the importance of partnerships, the prime minister sent a clear signal: India is not a client state. Its strategic autonomy is non-negotiable.
Also read: It doesn’t end here. India must prepare for mightier neighbours
Power-backed peace pursuit
Despite the aggressive posturing against terrorism, PM Modi’s speech was not a war cry. It was, in fact, a call for peace—but a peace grounded in strength. “Peace cannot come through silence or surrender,” Modi said, invoking the moral authority of a nation that has long endured, and finally decided to draw a line.
In doing so, he offered the Indian public a message of hope and confidence. The speech reassured citizens that their government is not just responsive, but forward-looking. It does not merely react to terror—it seeks to eliminate its causes.
This blend of strength and optimism reflects a maturing national psyche—one that no longer views peace and power as mutually exclusive.
Also read: Pakistan can’t test India’s strategic patience anymore. The doctrine has flipped
New anti-terror strategy
Perhaps the most significant element of the address was the paradigm shift it signaled in India’s counter-terrorism strategy. Operation Sindoor was not just a military operation—it was a demonstration of India’s new rules of engagement. No longer is terrorism treated as a law-and-order problem; it is a matter of national defence.
By acknowledging the complicity of the Pakistani state—highlighted, among other things, by the participation of military officials at the funerals of slain terrorists—Modi dissolved the artificial separation between ‘non-state actors’ and their state sponsors.
This recognition lays the foundation for a policy that targets not just the pawns of terror, but also their enablers.
Also read: Did India achieve deterrence? Depends on whether Pakistan was psychologically bruised
Modi’s ‘sadharanikaran’
What made the speech truly effective was its alignment with the principles of sadharanikaran. The Prime Minister did not speak down to the people; he spoke with them. He acknowledged their grief, mirrored their anger, and inspired their hope. He bridged the gap between the government’s strategy and the citizen’s sentiment, making the abstract tangible, and the complex comprehensible.
Through carefully chosen metaphors, emotional anchoring, and contextual framing, Modi was able to create shared meaning—an essential hallmark of effective public leadership in the Indian tradition. This was not communication as performance; it was communication as connection.
In sum, the Prime Minister’s address was not merely a summary of a military operation. It was a moment of national redefinition. It signaled India’s transition from reactive victimhood to strategic assertiveness, from defensive diplomacy to confident statecraft.
By drawing on indigenous communicative frameworks like sadharanikaran, and blending them with the geopolitical maturity of a rising power, the speech offered a model not just for what India says, but how India sees itself—and how it wishes to be seen.
India’s message is now clear: Peace will remain our pursuit, but it will be pursued through strength, with clarity, and on our own terms
Dr R Balasubramaniam is the author of the national best seller, ‘Power Within: The Leadership Legacy of Narendra Modi’. Views expressed are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
A victory is not real if others are not convinced about it, and the defeated still stands to mock and challenge the victor.
A real defeat is inevitable next if the victor is solely convinced by such victory, and they then merely scold others for their disbelief.
—————
The above is not hoary observation made by Thucydides. It is common street wisdom that every dweller knows for sure not to disregard.
No matter, such is our enslavement by a Godman’s industrial cult that empty sycophants smugly talk down to us, and tell us what we should be thinking and feeling about the otherwise starkly and unavoidably obvious.
We are a project. There is much transformation they wish us to yet undergo. Our mere obedience so far does not suffice now.
The author’s article is a long hymn on the dazzling, divine qualities of a speech which can’t be imagined by ordinary minds. For conformity, what we are now required to attain is rapturous surrender. It is a rare state of intense, blind enthrallment only which can raise us to high “sadharanikaran—a concept that goes beyond mere transmission of information to establish a shared understanding between the communicator and the audience.”
We are to become gopis who are ever-immersed in pining worship of their absent and indifferent lord.
How did we, an intelligent people who have endured and survived much with dignity, meekly allow this to happen to us? I feel burning shame when I think of the dishonour and disservice we do to ourselves and our ancestors by our negligence towards duty, ethics, and current realities.