It has now become a routine practice. Indian national security apparatus is now mentally trained to rely on a reliable domestic fallback. They tend to frame internal crises, social unrest, political opposition and even a mere disruption (jokingly) through the lens of external subversion. By consistently invoking “Pakistan-sponsored” modules, foreign handlers, and cross-border threats, New Delhi has systematically converted domestic governance shortfalls into national security emergencies. However, this strategy faces growing internal scepticism and intense international scrutiny, exposing a clear contradiction between India’s domestic claims and its global actions.

Whenever the state faces public grievances, whether it is the calls of agrarian protests and economic stagnation or minority rights demands, legitimate political dissent is routinely securitised. Under the broad label of anti-state activity, critical voices are branded as threats, while sensationalist media coverage reinforces official narratives of invisible foreign hand manipulation.

If New Delhi’s intelligence and border security apparatus is as impenetrable as officially claimed, the repeated emergence of alleged nationwide infiltration raises immediate operational questions.

Mass roundups are often publicised as counter-terrorism triumphs. Yet, statistical patterns reveal a persistent contradiction: the vast majority of individuals detained under draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) are not foreign operatives, but Indian citizens, overwhelmingly drawn from marginalised local minority populations. When multi-state crackdowns occur, initial press releases dominate headlines with claims of dismantled networks. However, these announcements frequently lack publicly demonstrated, independent forensic evidence, digital validation, or clear financial trails. Indian state apparatus should be aware of the fact that detention does not constitute proof in the eyes of the constitution and its framework. The true measure of counter-terrorism success lies in judicial findings that survive independent court scrutiny, not in high-profile arrest counts that struggle to produce convictions.

This heavy reliance on the external threat narrative creates a logical paradox. If New Delhi’s intelligence and border security apparatus is as impenetrable as officially claimed, the repeated emergence of alleged nationwide infiltration raises immediate operational questions. Is foreign subversion as widespread as portrayed, or does invoking an external adversary serve as a convenient political mechanism to bypass accountability for domestic policy failures?

As public scepticism grows, citizens increasingly question why complex social and governance issues are treated as security threats rather than policy challenges requiring political resolution. Furthermore, attributing internal unrest solely to foreign actors overlooks how regional diplomatic friction with multiple neighbours, including Nepal, Bangladesh, and China, reflects broader regional foreign policy challenges rather than a single external source.

While New Delhi applies stringent security measures domestically over alleged foreign links, its own external footprint has drawn unprecedented global scrutiny. Cases highlighting extraterritorial operations have fundamentally altered international perceptions in Pakistan, specifically Balochistan, in the United States and in Canada. I would like to mention a few for the record and reference. The detention and trial of former Indian Navy officer Khulbhushan Jhadav highlighted long-standing concerns regarding covert intelligence activities in Balochistan. The US Department of Justice unsealed indictments against Indian government agent Vikash Yadav and co-defendant Nikhil Gupta concerning an alleged murder plot on American soil. Moreover, assertions by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) regarding state-linked intelligence operations, combined with Ottawa’s formal terrorist designation of the Bishnoi Gang, directly targeted alleged transnational criminal networks. These international cases challenge the traditional narrative of external victimhood. Selective outrage over foreign interference becomes difficult to sustain when a state faces formal legal proceedings and diplomatic sanctions abroad for similar actions.History

Ultimately, invoking external threats offers diminishing returns as a governing strategy. National security cannot replace governance, nor can mass detentions substitute for judicial proof. True strategic stability requires shifting the debate away from external scapegoating toward addressing domestic governance, judicial integrity, and minority protection within a transparent legal framework. Indian minds, specifically those in ruling quarters, should move beyond this cheap blame game. I hope some sense prevails in the minds of Indian stakeholders!

SOURCE:https://dailytimes.com.pk/1542804/beyond-the-blame-game/