Defence Minister Rajnath Singh Thursday said India had moved beyond “strategic containment” and “deterrence by denial” to a doctrine of “deterrence by punishment”, asserting that no border could prevent the country from striking terrorist infrastructure and that perpetrators and their sponsors would no longer be treated separately. Speaking at News18 DefCon 2026, Singh also warned against viewing national security merely through the defence of physical borders, arguing that threats now extended to cyberspace, the economy, energy supplies and information systems.
Singh cited surgical strikes, the 2019 Balakot air strike and Operation Sindoor as examples of the shift in India’s strategic approach. He said India remained committed to diplomacy and peace but argued that diplomatic influence had to be backed by credible military capability.
‘Deterrence by punishment’
“We’ve also conveyed the message that no border can prevent us from dismantling terrorist infrastructure. No distinction will be made between terrorists and their sponsors,” Singh said, while outlining the government’s security doctrine.
“By suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, we’ve made it clear that blood and water cannot flow together. Our approach has now evolved beyond ‘strategic containment’ and ‘deterrence by denial’ towards ‘deterrence by punishment’,” he said.
In strategic terms, deterrence by denial seeks to convince an adversary that an attack will fail to achieve its objectives, while deterrence by punishment seeks to prevent aggression by signalling that an attack will invite retaliatory costs. Singh’s formulation placed greater emphasis on India’s willingness to respond after an attack rather than relying exclusively on defensive measures to prevent one.
Referring specifically to terrorism originating from Pakistan, Singh said India had articulated its new approach through Operation Sindoor. He said any future terror attack originating from Pakistani territory would be considered an “act of war” against India and warned that those contemplating a “misadventure” would receive the response they deserved.
‘Borders fixed, threats fluid’
Singh also cautioned policymakers against what he termed the “perimeter fallacy” — the assumption that national security can be understood primarily as the protection of a country’s geographical boundaries. He said the nature of conflict had changed substantially as technology opened new fronts far beyond conventional battlefields.
“Borders are fixed, but the boundaries of threats have become very fluid,” Singh said. Modern security challenges, he argued, included drones and unmanned systems, cyberattacks, lone-wolf attacks and disinformation campaigns alongside conventional weapons and military threats.
Economic and energy security had also become integral to national security because hostile actors could attempt to damage an economy or disrupt critical energy supply chains, he said. The changing threat environment required India to adopt a more holistic security architecture rather than concentrating resources only along territorial frontiers.
‘Power of argument, argument of power’
The Defence Minister said India possessed both the “power of argument” and the “argument of power”, and would use whichever approach circumstances demanded. “We are proponents of resolution through democracy and diplomacy. But, for our security, we can take decisive action too, and we do so,” he said.
Singh argued that diplomacy without adequate military capability could be interpreted as weakness, while military preparedness without diplomacy could fuel confrontation and a security dilemma. India’s objective, he said, was therefore to strengthen both simultaneously rather than treating them as competing approaches.
“Soft power can be a complement to hard power, but it cannot be its alternative in any way,” Singh said. “Diplomacy is important, but diplomacy gets strengthened when it is backed by capability.”
He pointed to India’s engagement through the Quad, I2U2, BIMSTEC, BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as part of its diplomatic outreach. At the same time, he said the country had been expanding its military and strategic capabilities to respond to emerging threats.
Three Ts of future warfare
Singh identified “terrain, technology and thinking” as three critical elements that would determine preparedness for future warfare. While terrain had traditionally referred largely to physical geography, he said newer domains such as cyberspace had transformed the battlefield and made technological capability increasingly decisive.
The government was therefore focusing on artificial intelligence, autonomous platforms, drones, secure communications and other emerging technologies as it sought to make the armed forces future-ready. Singh said security planning could no longer be based on “wishful thinking” and had to be grounded in changing strategic realities and national interest.
The Defence Minister also linked strategic autonomy to self-reliance in military production, arguing that dependence on foreign suppliers could itself become a security vulnerability. He said the government had simplified licensing rules, prioritised indigenous equipment through the Defence Acquisition Procedure and expanded the number of systems reserved for domestic procurement.
5,500 items on indigenisation lists
More than 5,500 items have been placed across over 10 Positive Indigenisation Lists, Singh said, restricting their import over specified timelines and encouraging domestic production. He also said defence research and development expenditure had risen from about Rs 13,700 crore in 2014-15 to more than Rs 29,000 crore.
Twenty-five per cent of the defence R&D budget had also been opened to industry, start-ups and academia, he said. Pointing to the Tejas fighter aircraft, INS Vikrant and the Dhanush artillery system, Singh argued that indigenous capabilities were becoming increasingly central to India’s defence preparedness.
Singh maintained that India was not seeking war but needed the capacity and willingness to defend its sovereignty and citizens. His remarks placed retaliation, technological preparedness and indigenous military capability at the heart of what he described as an evolving national security approach.