Manmohan Singh Believed, Modi Acted: A Tale of Two Doctrines
As the dust settles on the Pahalgam attacks and Operation Sindoor, an old video of former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is once again making the rounds on the internet. In this clip from 2009, while addressing the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Singh is seen advocating restraint in the face of terror and expressing his hope that the international community would rise to the occasion and act against Pakistan. It was a moment of clarity for him — a moment that defined India’s moral posture in a world of rising extremism.
On November 26, 2008, India witnessed an act of terror so brutal, so meticulously planned, and so psychologically scarring that it changed the nation’s sense of security forever. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks were not just another tragic entry in India’s long list of terror strikes; they were a full-blown urban war. Carried out by 10 heavily armed terrorists from across the border, trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba and coordinated from Pakistan, the 60-hour siege claimed 166 innocent lives and wounded hundreds. Hotels, train stations, cafes, a Jewish center — Mumbai burned in front of the world.
And yet, in the face of this horror, the Indian government led by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh chose restraint. There were no retaliatory airstrikes, no cross-border operations, and no covert punitive actions, at least none that were acknowledged. In 2009, while speaking in Washington, Dr. Singh expressed what he saw as a principled position: “I am proud that we did not retaliate.” For him, diplomacy, global alliances, and international condemnation were the preferred tools. His hope was simple yet profound — that India’s restraint would inspire the world to act.
But the world didn’t act. Beyond platitudes and condolences, there was no concerted effort to isolate Pakistan or hold it accountable. Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind of 26/11, continued to walk freely in Pakistan, giving sermons and political speeches. The United Nations added names to lists, the U.S. issued warnings, but nothing meaningful changed. Military aid to Pakistan was never frozen. No multilateral sanctions followed. The very restraint that Dr. Singh was proud of was, in strategic terms, interpreted as tolerable weakness.
This is not a criticism of Dr. Singh the man. In fact, his response was rooted in integrity and a belief in institutions. A quiet economist-turned-statesman, he chose what he felt was the dignified, rational path. He wanted to give peace a chance, and he believed that the global order had a conscience.
But that conscience, as history shows, was nowhere to be found. And while India waited, Pakistan prepared.
In the years that followed, the pattern repeated: Pathankot, Uri, Pulwama. Each time, Indian soldiers or civilians were killed by actors linked to Pakistan-based groups. Each time, India filed diplomatic complaints, presented dossiers, and hoped for international pressure. But by the time Uri happened in 2016, the doctrine of patience had worn thin.
It was in the post-Uri moment that India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi shifted course. Surgical strikes were launched across the Line of Control, targeting terror launch pads. This was followed by the 2019 Balakot airstrikes after Pulwama, in which the Indian Air Force struck a JeM camp inside Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. And then came 2025: the Pahalgam massacre, where 26 civilians were killed, mostly Hindu pilgrims. The response? Operation Sindoor — a calculated, precise, 23-minute campaign that struck nine terror-linked targets, including the very headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.
The contrast couldn’t be clearer. Where Singh appealed, Modi acted. Where Singh waited, Modi retaliated. Where Singh trusted the world, Modi placed trust in Indian capabilities.
And here’s the great irony: despite fears of escalation, war never came. Neither after Uri, nor Balakot, nor Sindoor. Pakistan, while rattling its sabers, did not dare cross the threshold. Global outrage never came. If anything, countries privately acknowledged India’s right to self-defense.
Which leads to a painful truth: perhaps it was not India that needed to show restraint in 2008, but the world that needed to show resolve. Because had there been real consequences then, perhaps the blood trail from Mumbai to Pulwama to Pahalgam might never have grown so long.
Dr. Manmohan Singh believed in peace. And for that, history will remember him with grace. But Narendra Modi acted — because the world failed to.
And in acting, India sent a new message: when justice is denied by others, it will no longer be delayed by us.
