Dorval’s centrifugal doctrine of proxy terrorism

2026-02-12 - 01:36

THIS Pakistan assertion holds the ground that, being highly dismayed over its declining global military reputation caused by India’s fatal defeat through Pakistan military’s Marka-e-Haq in May 2025, the Hindutva-driven Indian policymakers, including India’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, (a Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s confidant), have orchestrated a centrifugal trajectory to expand proxy terrorism in Pakistan. Arguably, while deterrence has largely reduced the prospects of war in South Asia, Pakistan still brews the non-conventional security threats from India as New Delhi’s approach focuses on fostering regional destabilization rather than depending on strategic resilience and diplomatic engagement with Pakistan. Recent arguments within Pakistani security policy circles suggest that India has expanded its use of proxy terrorism through a “shadow war”. This expanded trajectory includes the alleged activation of “assets” across multiple regions, specifically tasking groups in Balochistan and the Fitna-al-Khawarij (the state-designated term for the banned TTP) to increase their activities following major regional incidents. There is a strong and consistent argument circulating within Pakistani security policy circles and officially articulated by its government and military leadership, that India has expanded a “centrifugal trajectory” of proxy terrorism within Pakistan. Pakistani security officials and analysts have highlighted several dimensions of this perceived expanded trajectory. In 2025 and early 2026, the geopolitical landscape of South Asia has been marked by intense hostility between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan actively accusing the Narendra Modi-led Indian government of conducting a “proxy war” and orchestrating terrorist activities within its borders, particularly in Balochistan. Research documents from the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) describe an involving hybrid warfare that systematically targets high-impact areas, including Pak security forces. This has resulted in a significant diplomatic standoff, with Pakistan characterizing India’s foreign policy under Prime Minister Modi as “coercive” and “interventionist”. India utilizes a combination of conventional and non-conventional, asymmetric, or “hybrid” warfare to destabilize Pakistan, particularly targeting regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan also accuses Indian intelligence (RAW) of training, funding and arming separatist groups in Balochistan, specifically the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Baloch Liberation Front (BLF), to disrupt the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Following a period of conflict in May 2025, Pakistan has found India of readily sponsoring terrorist organizations like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and a group referred to as “Fitna al-Hindustan” (or Fitna al-Khwarij) to cause instability. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has claimed that India is intensifying terrorism in Pakistan through proxies after suffering a “humiliating defeat” in the conflict of April-May 2025. In January 2026, Doval urged Indian youth to “avenge” India’s historical injustices, referring to colonial-era subjugation and attacks. This language of “vengeance” prompted criticism, with some intellectuals and observers viewing it as a move toward a “communal ideology” and potentially alarming, rather than responsible statecraft. Needless to say, India’s National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval’s approach to Pakistan, often characterized by an “offensive-defensive” posture, has faced scrutiny within India’s intellectual and political circles. Pakistan has strongly condemned Doval’s rhetoric, characterizing it as fostering “imagined historical vendettas” rather than promoting stable statecraft. This aggressive posturing, including alleged involvement in sub-conventional and proxy warfare, has drawn concern. Analysts suggest Doval has shifted India’s posture towards “escalation dominance,” which increases the risk of conflict and reduces the space for diplomatic engagement. The South Asian observers have expressed concern that the “Doval Doctrine” relies heavily on military and intelligence-driven responses to terrorism, leading to a neglect of diplomacy and a “vindictive” mindset that hinders long-term peace-building. Pakistan has officially alleged that India’s “terrorist franchise” has gone global, pointing to accusations of transnational assassinations by other countries as evidence of this expanding trend. Pakistan’s security circles argue that India is leveraging porous borders with Afghanistan to fuel instability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Balochistan. Pakistan has explicitly blamed “Indian-backed proxies” for major, deadly attacks within its capital, including a suicide bombing at a mosque in February 2026. Additionally, the Pakistani security and intelligence agencies allege that India is utilizing emerging technologies to sponsor and direct terrorist activities within Pakistan, particularly following a major suicide bombing at an Islamabad mosque on February 6, 2026.The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has received reports regarding the “serious threat” posed by the TTP in South and Central Asia, including other groups’ access to external support and safe havens in the region. Pakistan continues to galvanize the situation at the global level that currently presents the security dynamics of the region. And yet, Indian Intellectuals have pointed out that the Dorval doctrine places disproportionate pressure on the state’s leadership to constantly compensate for underlying strategic or institutional weaknesses with bold individual actions. Indian opposition political leaders and some scholars argue that a hardline focus on Pakistan can sometimes be used to divert attention from domestic policy failures or internal security challenges. Moreover, India’s politician Shashi Tharoor has profoundly criticized the BJP’s hardline anti-Pakistan stance, arguing it has proven ineffective and escalates regional tensions rather than ensuring security. He advocates for pragmatic dialogue with Pakistan, emphasizing that engagement is viable if Islamabad takes concrete steps against cross-border terrorism. Tharoor underscores that India’s concerns about the Pakistani delegation should not hinder diplomatic efforts, highlighting the importance of strategic realism over confrontational rhetoric. There is growing global consensus that the future of South Asia hinges on dialogue, trust-building and inclusive development—not on India’s terrorist trajectory to destabilize this region via its terrorist proxies. —The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also a Peace and Conflict Studies expert, is member of the European Consortium of Political Research, including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. (rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)