"Water and blood cannot flow together": Analysis of PM Modi's address to nation

PM Modi addresses the nation about Operation Sindoor against Terrorism 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address on May 12, 2025 came in the aftermath of a major terror attack and a subsequent Indian military operation. On April 22, 2025, terrorists massacred 26 civilians (many of them tourists) in Pahalgam, Kashmir, in a barbaric attack that shocked the nation. An offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba claimed responsibility. In response, India launched “Operation Sindoor” on May 6-7 – a series of precise strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). This marked one of India’s most significant cross-border counter-terror operations since the Balakot airstrike in 2019.

By May 10, facing heavy losses, Pakistan’s military pleaded for de-escalation and agreed to a ceasefire. Against this backdrop, PM Modi’s televised address – his first statement since Operation Sindoor – was highly anticipated. In his speech, he praised India’s armed forces, outlined a new security doctrine, and issued a stern warning to Pakistan. He also touched on broader themes of peace, strength, and national development.

Below, we present the full transcript of PM Modi’s address (in English translation) with sentence-by-sentence explanations to clarify his messages. Key policy announcements – especially regarding India-Pakistan relations, counter-terrorism strategy, and national security – are highlighted and analyzed. We also examine broader themes of governance, economic and social development, and international relations that emerge from the speech, as well as the current and expected future impact of the Prime Minister’s remarks.

PM Modi’s Address to the Nation (May 12, 2025) – Transcript and Explanation

Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivering his address to the nation on May 12, 2025, following Operation Sindoor (Image Source: ANI/PTI)

Transcript (PM Modi’s words): “Dear fellow citizens, Namaskar!”

Explanation: PM Modi opens his speech with a traditional greeting – “Namaskar” – addressing all Indians respectfully. This sets a cordial tone and emphasizes that he is speaking directly to the people of India as one collective family.

 “In the past few days, we have witnessed both the strength and the restraint of our nation. First of all, I salute the brave forces of India — our armed forces, our intelligence agencies, our scientists — on behalf of every Indian citizen. Our courageous soldiers displayed immense valor in achieving the objectives of Operation Sindoor. I dedicate their bravery, their courage, and their gallantry to every mother, every sister, and every daughter of this country.”

Explanation: The Prime Minister begins by reflecting on recent events, noting that India has shown both strength and restraint. By mentioning “strength”, he alludes to India’s powerful military response, and by “restraint”, he suggests that India acted with control and did not seek escalation for its own sake. He immediately salutes India’s security forces, intelligence agencies, and scientists, crediting them for the success of Operation Sindoor. This salute on behalf of all citizens underlines national gratitude toward those who protect the country. PM Modi praises the “immense valor” of Indian soldiers in accomplishing Operation Sindoor’s objectives. He then makes a heartfelt dedication of their bravery to the women of India – “every mother, every sister, and every daughter”. By doing so, he invokes the image of “sindoor” (vermilion worn by married Indian women) which becomes a recurring symbol in the speech. Essentially, Modi is saying the forces fought to uphold the honor and safety of the nation’s women, and he honors women’s sacrifices and strength in turn. This emotional touch also underscores that the fight against terrorism is for the protection of innocent civilians.

 “Friends, the barbarity shown by terrorists in Pahalgam on April 22 shook not only the nation but the world. Innocent civilians enjoying their holidays were mercilessly killed – questioned about their religion and murdered in front of their families, in front of their children. This was an extremely gruesome face of terror and a cruel attempt to break our social harmony. Personally, this attack caused me immense pain.”

Explanation: Here, PM Modi recounts the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22, describing its brutality. He uses strong words like “barbarity” and “gruesome” to characterize the terrorists’ actions. By noting that tourists were “questioned about their religion” before being killed in front of their families, he highlights the sectarian hate underlying the massacre and the depths of cruelty involved. The Prime Minister emphasizes that this act of terror not only shook India’s conscience but also horrified the entire world – signaling how grave and unacceptable such terrorism is on a global scale. He further calls it an attempt to “break our social harmony”, meaning the attackers wanted to incite fear and communal discord among Indians. Modi then adds a personal note, saying the attack caused him “immense pain”, which conveys his empathy as a leader and personal commitment to responding to such an atrocity. This sets the stage for why the government’s strong response (Operation Sindoor) was necessary – it was not just a strategic decision, but a moral one driven by national and personal anguish.

 “After this terrorist attack, the entire nation — every citizen, every community, every political party — stood together in one voice demanding strong action against terrorism. We gave our armed forces full freedom to eliminate the terrorists. And now, every terrorist and every terror outfit knows the consequences of attempting to wipe the vermilion (sindoor) from the foreheads of our sisters and daughters.”

Explanation: PM Modi notes that India responded with unprecedented unity after the Pahalgam attack. He deliberately mentions “every community, every political party” standing together, highlighting a rare moment of national unity across political and social lines in demanding action. This underscores that fighting terrorism is above politics or sectarian divides – it’s a collective national cause. He then reveals that the government gave the armed forces “full freedom” to act – essentially a free hand to carry out necessary operations to hunt down the perpetrators. This is significant; it implies that military planners were unrestrained by political hesitation and could execute a forceful response. The latter part of the statement returns to the symbol of “sindoor” (vermilion). Modi says now every terrorist organization knows the consequences of trying to “wipe the vermilion from our sisters’ and daughters’ foreheads.” In Indian culture, sindoor symbolizes the married status of women and, by extension, their dignity and honor. The phrase means that any attempt to dishonor or harm the women of India (used broadly to signify harming innocent Indians) will be met with severe retribution. In essence, India’s enemies have been taught a lesson – they will pay a heavy price for terrorism against Indians.

 “Friends, Operation Sindoor is not just a name — it reflects the emotions of millions of Indians. It is an unwavering pledge to justice. On the night of May 6 and the morning of May 7, the entire world saw this pledge transform into action. India’s armed forces carried out precise strikes on terrorist camps and training centers inside Pakistan. The terrorists never imagined that India could take such a bold decision. But when the nation is united, filled with the spirit of Nation First, and the country is supreme, then decisions made are ironclad — and results are delivered.”

Explanation: In this segment, PM Modi explains the significance of the code name “Operation Sindoor.” He says it is “not just a name” but a reflection of “the emotions of millions of Indians”. By this, he means the operation was driven by collective anger, grief, and resolve of the populace after the Pahalgam attack. Calling it an “unwavering pledge to justice” signals that the mission was about avenging innocent lives and upholding justice. Modi then confirms the details: on May 6-7, India’s armed forces conducted precise strikes on terror camps inside Pakistan. This is a rare public admission of cross-border military action. The precision strikes targeted terrorist hideouts and training centers across the border. He notes that terrorists “never imagined India could take such a bold decision.” Indeed, for decades India showed restraint in the face of terror, often confining responses to diplomatic pressure or limited strikes. By ordering broad attacks deep into Pakistani territory, India defied those expectations. Modi attributes this bold decision to national unity and a “Nation First” ethos. When Indians unite with the country’s interest supreme, he says, then “ironclad decisions” are taken and “results are delivered.” This clearly references how domestic unity and political will enabled a successful operation. It’s also a message of strong governance – that under his leadership, India will take decisive actions when provoked, breaking from the past hesitations. The world witnessed India’s resolve “transform into action” on those days, which also serves to warn any adversaries that India is ready to act firmly in its self-defense.

 “When Indian missiles and drones struck terror bases in Pakistan, not only did the terrorist infrastructures crumble, but their morale was shattered too. Terror hubs like Bahawalpur and Muridke have long functioned as universities of global terrorism. Major terror attacks across the world — be it 9/11, the London Tube bombings, or attacks in India over decades — have had links to these very bases. Because terrorists dared to shatter the vermilion of our sisters, India dismantled these terror headquarters.”

Explanation: Modi describes the impact of India’s strikes in vivid terms. He mentions that India deployed missiles and drones to hit the terror targets in Pakistan. This detail highlights the use of advanced, precise weaponry and suggests a coordinated air and ground campaign. The strikes not only destroyed the physical “terrorist infrastructure” (buildings, camps, training facilities) but also “shattered their morale.” In other words, beyond material damage, the terrorists were psychologically devastated, losing confidence and hope. The PM then specifically calls out Bahawalpur and Muridke – locations in Pakistan notorious as breeding grounds for terrorism. (Muridke, for example, is associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba’s base, and Bahawalpur with Jaish-e-Mohammed’s headquarters.) By labeling them “universities of global terrorism,” he reminds listeners that these places have produced or trained extremists responsible for major attacks worldwide, including 9/11 in the U.S., the 2005 London subway bombings, and numerous attacks in India. This draws a line connecting Pakistan’s soil to international terrorism, bolstering India’s justification for targeting them. Modi then justifies India’s action by saying: because the terrorists dared to attack Indians (metaphorically “shatter the vermilion” of our sisters), **India in turn “dismantled these terror headquarters”. This emphasizes a tit-for-tat message – if you strike us, nowhere (not even your home base) will be safe from our retaliation. It also signals a new policy of preemptive/self-defensive strikes on terror launchpads across the border, breaking past restraint. By highlighting the global terror links, Modi is also subtly appealing to the international community’s understanding that India’s actions contribute to global counter-terrorism, not just India’s own security.

 “In our strikes, more than 100 dangerous terrorists were eliminated. Many terror masterminds who had been openly roaming in Pakistan for two and a half to three decades, plotting against India, were neutralized in one decisive stroke.”

Explanation: The Prime Minister quantifies the success of Operation Sindoor, claiming that over 100 terrorists were killed in the Indian strikes. This figure underscores the operation’s effectiveness in substantially degrading terrorist cadres. He also notes that among those eliminated were several “terror masterminds” – individuals responsible for orchestrating attacks, who had operated freely in Pakistan for 25–30 years while plotting against India. Neutralizing such long-sought figures “in one decisive stroke” is presented as a major achievement. It implies that Operation Sindoor succeeded where years of diplomatic pressure had failed, taking out high-profile militants who enjoyed safe haven in Pakistan. This statement sends a strong message: India will no longer tolerate terrorist leaders living with impunity. By removing them, India delivered justice for past attacks and potentially prevented future ones. The decisiveness of the strike also serves as deterrence – any terrorist leaders still at large are put on notice that they cannot assume immunity based on their hosts’ nuclear umbrella or past Indian restraint. (Notably, media reports and officials later confirmed strikes on camps of groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen, and the killing of some of their top operatives.)

 “Friends, Pakistan was gripped by utter despair, frustration, and panic after India’s action. In its frenzy, it committed yet another reckless act. Instead of supporting India’s anti-terror actions, Pakistan began attacking India – targeting our schools and colleges, gurudwaras, temples, and civilian homes, and even our military installations. But in doing so, Pakistan only exposed itself.”

Explanation: Modi now turns to Pakistan’s reaction to Operation Sindoor. He describes Pakistan as being in a state of “despair, frustration, and panic” after India’s strikes hit their terror infrastructure. This choice of words portrays Pakistan as caught off-guard and destabilized by the Indian offensive. He then accuses Pakistan of a “reckless act” in response – launching its own attacks on India instead of acknowledging the terrorism problem. According to Modi, Pakistan chose to retaliate by firing missiles and drones at Indian targets, hitting not just military sites but also civilian targets like schools, religious places (gurudwaras, temples), and homes. This mirrors real events during the brief conflict: Pakistan’s forces attempted strikes across the border and even targeted civilian areas, which India has highlighted as proof of Pakistan’s malign intent. Modi expresses disapproval that Pakistan “instead of supporting India’s fight against terror, chose to attack”. The phrase “exposed itself” implies that Pakistan, by these actions, revealed its true colors to the world – confirming that it stands on the side of terrorism (since it retaliated on behalf of terrorists) and is willing to endanger innocent lives. In other words, Pakistan’s reckless retaliation vindicated India’s claims that Pakistan sponsors terror and cannot be trusted to behave responsibly. This part of the speech also subtly appeals to international opinion: by cataloging the civilian and religious sites Pakistan targeted, Modi tries to frame India as the responsible actor versus Pakistan as the aggressor violating humanitarian norms.

 “The world saw how Pakistan’s drones and missiles crumbled like straw before India’s powerful air defense systems. They were destroyed in the skies. Pakistan had planned attacks at the border, but India struck deep into Pakistan’s heart. Our drones and missiles precisely hit their targets, damaging airbases that Pakistan was proud of. Within the first three days, India caused such destruction that Pakistan couldn’t have imagined.”

Explanation: Here, PM Modi highlights the military superiority and preparedness demonstrated by India. He notes that Pakistan’s attempted attacks – using drones and missiles – were “crumbled like straw” by India’s air defense systems. In other words, India’s anti-missile defenses easily shot down Pakistan’s incoming threats, preventing any significant damage. “They were destroyed in the skies” emphasizes that none of Pakistan’s strikes found their mark. This underlines the strength of India’s defensive technology and readiness. Modi contrasts Pakistan’s approach versus India’s: Pakistan “planned attacks at the border,” likely meaning they intended to hit Indian border outposts or civilian areas near the Line of Control. However, India “struck deep into Pakistan’s heart”, meaning India’s retaliation was not limited to the frontier – it hit high-value targets well inside Pakistani territory. This asymmetry underscores that India dominated the escalation ladder, choosing the battleground on its own terms. He then says Indian drones and missiles “precisely hit their targets,” including damaging Pakistani airbases that were sources of pride for Pakistan. (Independent reports noted that India’s strikes damaged assets like the Nur Khan Airbase in Rawalpindi and the Rahim Yar Khan Airbase.) This would have been a major blow to Pakistan’s military infrastructure. Modi asserts that in the first three days of conflict, India inflicted unimaginable destruction on Pakistan. The takeaway is that India decisively outmatched Pakistan, both by thwarting Pakistan’s offensive moves and by executing far more punishing counter-attacks. This not only boosts domestic pride but also serves as a deterrent message that any future misadventures by Pakistan will meet a similar fate.

 “Following India’s aggressive action, Pakistan began seeking escape routes. It started appealing globally to de-escalate tensions. After being badly defeated, on the afternoon of May 10, the Pakistani army contacted our DGMO. By then, we had already destroyed a large part of the terrorist infrastructure, eliminated many terrorists, and turned their terror nests in Pakistan into ruins.”

Explanation: Modi describes how Pakistan quickly changed its tune once it felt the heat of India’s response. “Seeking escape routes” and “appealing globally to de-escalate” means that Pakistan went on a diplomatic outreach, likely urging countries like the United States, China, or Gulf states to intervene and calm the situation. This is a common pattern: after initial brinkmanship, Pakistan often calls for ceasefire when it faces military pressure. Modi notes that on May 10 (three days into the conflict), Pakistan’s army officially got in touch with the Indian Army – via the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMO) channel – essentially to sue for peace. By using the phrase “after being badly defeated”, Modi makes it clear he views this outreach as a sign of Pakistan’s loss in the confrontation. He also catalogs that by the time Pakistan pleaded for talks, India had already achieved its primary objectives: a large portion of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan was “turned into ruins”, and many terrorists were eliminated. In other words, Operation Sindoor had largely accomplished its mission before pausing. This implies India was able to call off further strikes from a position of strength, having delivered a heavy blow. It frames the ceasefire as India’s choice to show restraint after punishing the enemy, rather than any concession. The mention of Pakistan “appealing globally” also suggests that international pressure might have mounted (reports indicate the U.S. and others were alarmed by two nuclear powers clashing and quietly intervened to prevent further escalation). But Modi’s narrative is that Pakistan begged for de-escalation because it was overwhelmed, reinforcing the image of an Indian tactical victory.

 “When Pakistan pleaded and said it would refrain from further terrorist and military provocations, India took this into consideration. But let me reiterate — we have only paused our counteroffensive on Pakistan’s terrorist and military establishments. In the days to come, we will evaluate Pakistan’s every move based on its behavior.”

Explanation: In these lines, PM Modi confirms the conditional ceasefire and issues a warning. He acknowledges that Pakistan “pleaded” and promised to stop further terror and military misadventures, and that India considered this plea. The wording suggests India did not blindly trust Pakistan, but was willing to suspend operations if Pakistan genuinely ceased hostilities and terror support. Crucially, Modi emphasizes that India’s counteroffensive is only paused, not ended. “Only paused” means India stands ready to resume military action if provoked again. This is a clear signal to Pakistan that the reprieve is conditional and reversible. He puts Pakistan on notice: India will “evaluate Pakistan’s every move” in coming days and judge it by “its behavior.” In practice, this means if Pakistan fails to curb terrorist groups or if there is another cross-border attack, India reserves the right to strike again. This established what many media termed a “new normal” – India setting the terms of engagement going forward. Modi’s message here underscores accountability: the onus is now on Pakistan to uphold peace by dismantling terror activities, or face further action. This part of the speech effectively outlines a policy shift – moving from a one-off retaliatory strike to a sustained doctrine of proactive deterrence against terrorism from Pakistan.

 “Friends, India’s three armed forces — Air Force, Army, and Navy — as well as our Border Security Force and paramilitary units, remain on high alert. After surgical strikes and air strikes, Operation Sindoor now defines India’s new counter-terrorism policy. It has set a new benchmark — a new normal.”

Explanation: Modi assures the public that India remains vigilant. By listing the Air Force, Army, Navy, BSF, and paramilitary, he conveys that all branches of India’s defense and security apparatus are on high alert. This is meant to reassure citizens that the country is prepared for any eventuality or retaliation even after the ceasefire – there will be no complacency. Next, he places Operation Sindoor in context with previous Indian responses to terror: the “surgical strikes” of 2016 (after Uri attack) and the “air strikes” of 2019 (Balakot, after Pulwama attack). These were notable but relatively limited actions. Now, he says, Operation Sindoor defines India’s new counter-terrorism policy and sets a “new benchmark — a new normal”. This is a powerful policy statement. It indicates that going forward, India will consider the kind of large-scale, multi-day, cross-border military action seen in Operation Sindoor as within the realm of expected responses to terrorism. In other words, the threshold for Indian retaliation has been lowered – India won’t hesitate to strike far more forcefully at terror threats, even across international borders, than it may have in the past. The term “new normal” suggests that both domestic and international audiences should not be surprised if India repeats such operations; it is now India’s established doctrine. By framing it as policy, Modi is also sending a signal to the Indian security establishment and the global community that India has institutionalized a tougher stance on terrorism.

 “First — if India is attacked by terrorism, we will give a resounding response — on our terms, in our way. We will take tough action at the very roots of terrorism, wherever they may be.”

Explanation: Here Modi enumerates the first pillar of India’s new doctrine post-Operation Sindoor. In simple terms: any terrorist attack on India will meet with a strong, decisive retaliation. The key phrases “on our terms, in our way” highlight that India will choose the timing, location, and method of response that it deems fit – not necessarily symmetric or limited to Indian soil. “At the very roots of terrorism, wherever they may be” clearly indicates that if the roots of a terror attack lie across the border (for instance, in terrorist camps in Pakistan), India will target those roots. This is essentially a declaration that no place that harbors or aids terrorists is off-limits for India’s response. This principle encapsulates what happened with Operation Sindoor: terrorists attacked in Kashmir, so India struck the terror bases in Pakistan that trained and sent those attackers. The tone is resolute – “resounding response” implies overwhelming force. By making this the first point, Modi is solidifying deterrence: he wants any hostile actor to expect a severe Indian reprisal if they sponsor or carry out terror on Indian soil.

 “Second — India will not tolerate any kind of nuclear blackmail. Even if terror camps hide behind nuclear threats, India will strike with precision and decisiveness.”

Explanation: The second pillar addresses a critical strategic issue: Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent or “nuclear blackmail.” For years, Pakistan has signaled that its nuclear weapons capability would deter India from retaliating too hard against terror attacks, effectively using the threat of nuclear escalation as a shield for cross-border terrorism. PM Modi bluntly states that India will no longer be cowed by such threats. “Not tolerate nuclear blackmail” means India rejects Pakistan’s strategy of brandishing nuclear weapons to stave off Indian conventional action. He further says if terrorists think they are safe because their camps are “hide behind nuclear threats,” India will still strike them with precision and decisiveness. This implies India has the means to conduct pinpoint strikes that avoid triggering a full-scale war, thereby calling Pakistan’s “nuclear bluff”. Indeed, Operation Sindoor itself demonstrated that India was willing to carry out strikes inside Pakistan despite nuclear risks. By articulating this doctrine, Modi is signalling a major policy shift in South Asia’s strategic calculus: India will pursue terrorists even under the shadow of nuclear weapons, undermining Pakistan’s long-standing deterrence posture. This pillar is meant to deter Pakistan from assuming its nuclear arsenal grants it impunity to sponsor terrorism. It also reassures the Indian public that their government is not deterred by Pakistani threats. In sum, Modi is asserting India’s resolve to neutralize terror threats irrespective of Pakistan’s nuclear saber-rattling.

 “Third — we will not differentiate between a government that harbors terror and the terrorists themselves. During Operation Sindoor, the world saw Pakistan’s ugly truth once again — how senior Pakistani military officers rushed to bid farewell to slain terrorists. This is strong evidence of state-sponsored terrorism. We will continue to take decisive steps to protect India and our citizens from every threat.”

Explanation: The third pillar of the new doctrine addresses the source of terrorism – making no distinction between terrorists and the state that supports or shelters them. Modi is clearly referring to Pakistan’s establishment (government and military) here. He says that if a government is harboring terror, India will treat that government as equally culpable as the terrorists. This is a direct indictment of Pakistan, which India accuses of state-sponsored terrorism. He even gives an example observed during the conflict: “senior Pakistani officers rushed to bid farewell to slain terrorists.” Reports had circulated that Pakistani military officials attended the funerals of militants eliminated by India. By highlighting this, Modi provides a vivid illustration to the world that Pakistan’s army itself has deep ties with terrorist groups – “Pakistan’s ugly truth”, as he calls it. This serves as evidence supporting India’s long-standing claim that terrorism in India (especially in Kashmir) is actively abetted by Pakistan’s state apparatus. Thus, Modi asserts India will hold the Pakistani state accountable, not just the proxies. “We will continue to take decisive steps to protect India... from every threat” reinforces that India’s government will proactively act against not only terrorists but also any regime that uses terror as an instrument of policy. In practical terms, this could mean more diplomatic isolation for Pakistan, covert actions, economic measures, or even targeting Pakistani military assets if necessary when responding to terror provocations. It signals a hardening of India’s stance: no more separating terror groups from their patrons – they will all face India’s wrath alike. This pillar complements the first two: it justifies that striking terrorist bases in Pakistan is effectively striking Pakistan’s military-jihadi complex, which India views as one and the same menace.

 “Friends, we have defeated Pakistan every time on the battlefield, and this time Operation Sindoor has added a new dimension. We demonstrated our prowess in deserts and mountains, and also proved our superiority in new-age warfare. During this operation, the credibility of our Made-in-India weapons was firmly established. The world now recognizes that the time for Made-in-India defense equipment in 21st-century warfare has arrived.”

Explanation: Modi here puts Operation Sindoor in historical and technological perspective. He asserts that India has always prevailed in direct military confrontations with Pakistan (referring to past wars in 1947-48, 1965, 1971, 1999 Kargil, etc.). Now, “a new dimension” has been added by Operation Sindoor. That new dimension is likely the demonstration of India’s capabilities in “new-age warfare”, such as the use of drones, precision missiles, and high-tech defense systems, as well as cyber and space-based assets, if any. By saying India showed prowess in “deserts and mountains” (traditional theaters like Rajasthan deserts, Kashmir mountains) and in new domains, he suggests the operation covered conventional terrain combat and modern remote warfare.

Importantly, Modi highlights the success of indigenously developed weapons – *“Made-in-India” weapons – during the operation. This underscores a couple of points: First, it’s a nod to India’s domestic defense industry and the Make in India initiative, which aims for self-reliance in military hardware. He’s effectively saying these home-grown systems performed exceptionally well in real combat, bolstering their credibility. Second, by mentioning the world’s recognition, he implies that global confidence in Indian defense technology has increased. For example, India’s anti-missile systems, drones, and missiles used in the operation could attract international interest or buyers, raising India’s stature as an arms exporter. This part of the speech ties national security success to technological and economic progress, indicating that India’s strategy includes not just using military force but also building indigenous capacity. It signals that India is emerging as a modern military power that can innovate and deploy advanced systems – a point of pride domestically and a message to the world that India’s rise in defense technology contributes to 21st-century warfare capabilities. It also subtly hints at reducing dependence on foreign arms (which has strategic and economic benefits). Overall, Modi is celebrating that Operation Sindoor validated India’s military R&D and asserting that India is a force to be reckoned with, on its own terms, in modern warfare.

 “Friends, our unity against all forms of terrorism is our greatest strength. Certainly, this era is not of war – but neither is it the era of terrorism. Zero tolerance against terrorism is the guarantee of a better world.”

Explanation: Modi reiterates a broader philosophical stance here. He begins by emphasizing national unity in the face of terrorism as India’s greatest asset. This harkens back to how all Indians stood together after Pahalgam. It serves as a reminder that internal unity – across religions, regions, political lines – is crucial for defeating terror, which often aims to create divisions.

He then makes a notable statement: “Certainly, this era is not of war – but neither is it the era of terrorism.”. The first part, “this is not an era of war,” references a phrase Modi famously used in 2022 regarding the Ukraine conflict (addressing President Putin) which gained global attention as a call for peace. By invoking it again, he aligns with the idea that war between nations (especially major powers or nuclear-armed neighbors) is undesirable in the current era. However, he immediately balances it by saying this era is also not one for terrorism. Here he asserts that just as the world seeks to end wars, it must also end the scourge of terror. This is a message to the international community: while diplomacy should resolve conflicts, there must be zero tolerance for terrorism; you cannot excuse terror under the pretext of avoiding war.

“Zero tolerance against terrorism is the guarantee of a better world.” – This elevates India’s stance to a principle of global significance. It implies that eliminating terrorism is a prerequisite for global peace and progress. Modi is effectively urging all countries to adopt a zero-tolerance policy, meaning no safe havens, no funding, no moral ambivalence toward any terror group. This framing also casts India’s actions (like Operation Sindoor) as contributing to a “better world,” not just India’s own security. It’s both a defense of India’s right to hit terrorists and a call for international solidarity in fighting terror. By pairing these ideas (no war, no terror), Modi positions India as a country that prefers peace but will not compromise on eradicating terrorism – a stance that resonates with many nations that have suffered from terror and aligns with global counter-terrorism norms. It’s a broader theme of international relations in the speech: seeking a peaceful world order but with firm action against non-state militant threats.

 “Friends, the way the Pakistani army and government are nurturing terrorism will one day destroy Pakistan itself. If Pakistan wants to survive, it must dismantle its terror infrastructure. There is no other path to peace. India’s stand is absolutely clear – Terror and talks cannot go hand in hand. Terror and trade cannot go together. Water and blood cannot flow together.”

Explanation: Modi delivers a sharp admonition and warning to Pakistan in this part. He states that Pakistan’s policy of “nurturing terrorism” is ultimately self-destructive and “will one day destroy Pakistan itself.” This is a strong rebuke and perhaps a hint at Pakistan’s internal instability; by hosting terrorists, Pakistan risks blowback and international isolation, as well as economic ruin. He basically suggests Pakistan is on a suicidal path unless it changes course. “If Pakistan wants to survive, it must dismantle its terror infrastructure. There is no other path to peace.” – Here, Modi sets an ultimatum of sorts. The only way to achieve peace (and for Pakistan to have a viable future) is for Pakistan to eliminate the terrorist groups, camps, and networks operating on its soil. This is both a call to action and a justification for India’s stance: any peace talks or normal relations are impossible unless this fundamental issue is addressed.

He then articulates India’s position in uncompromising, slogan-like terms:

• “Terror and talks cannot go hand in hand.”
• “Terror and trade cannot go together.”
• “Water and blood cannot flow together.”

These three formulations encapsulate India’s policy doctrine toward Pakistan:

• The first means India will not engage in dialogue with Pakistan while Pakistan supports or exports terrorism. Diplomatic talks are off the table if bombs and bullets are flying. This reiterates a policy India has had in recent years – no peace dialogue until terrorism stops.
• The second, no terror and trade, implies that business-as-usual economic relations or any trade concessions with Pakistan are impossible under terror. Indeed, India had already taken steps like revoking Pakistan’s MFN trading status after earlier attacks. Modi’s line suggests this will continue – Pakistan can’t expect economic engagement while abetting terror.
• The third phrase, “water and blood cannot flow together,” is particularly striking. It refers to the Indus Waters Treaty (which governs sharing of rivers between India and Pakistan) and ongoing discussions around it. After the Pahalgam attack, India had put some aspects of the Indus treaty in abeyance as leverage. Modi’s statement implies that India is willing to choke Pakistan’s water supply (from rivers India controls) if Pakistani-sponsored bloodshed continues. It’s a stark way of saying: we won’t allow the lifeblood of rivers to flow to Pakistan if the lifeblood of our people is being spilled by Pakistani-backed terrorists. It signals that every facet of bilateral relations, even water sharing, is contingent on Pakistan renouncing terror.

By delivering these three points in one breath, Modi strongly conveys that India has drawn red lines in its relations with Pakistan – these are non-negotiable. It’s also meant for the international audience to understand why India is isolating Pakistan: no meaningful talk, trade, or even fulfilling of treaty obligations can be expected from India while Pakistan continues a proxy war. This is a tough stance that indicates a prolonged freeze in India-Pakistan relations unless a dramatic policy change occurs in Islamabad.

 “I also want to say this to the global community — our declared policy remains: if talks are to happen with Pakistan, they will only be on terrorism. And if talks happen with Pakistan, they will be about Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).”

Explanation: Modi directly addresses the international community here, underlining India’s diplomatic stance post-Operation Sindoor. He says India’s “declared policy remains” that any talks with Pakistan will focus solely on two things: terrorism and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). This is an explicit statement that significantly narrows the scope of any future dialogue:

• By insisting talks only be on terrorism, India is reinforcing that the elimination of terror networks is the precondition and primary agenda item. Essentially, India would sit at the table only to discuss how Pakistan will dismantle terror camps and end support to militant groups. This aligns with “terror and talks cannot go hand in hand” – meaning the only talk worth having is how to end terror.
• The mention of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (also known as PoK) is even more pointed. Modi is reiterating an Indian position that has grown more vocal in recent years: if substantive talks occur, India will raise the issue of the part of Kashmir under Pakistani control since 1947. This flips Pakistan’s traditional narrative (Pakistan always wanted talks on India’s Kashmir situation). Modi is asserting that the only territorial issue up for discussion is that Pakistan should return PoK to India.

This serves a couple of purposes. Domestically, it’s a strong statement satisfying those who demand India take back PoK someday – it shows Modi’s government has not forgotten that goal. Internationally, it tells third parties that India is not going to negotiate over the status of Indian-administered Kashmir (which Pakistan often internationalizes); instead, India would talk about getting back territory (PoK) illegally occupied by Pakistan. It’s effectively saying the onus is on Pakistan to end its occupation if it wants to discuss Kashmir at all.

Together, these points send a clear message: India’s diplomatic engagement with Pakistan will be minimal and hardline. There will be no broad peace talks or trade normalization dialogues until the terror issue is front and center and resolved, and even then, India will bring up Pakistan’s own obligations regarding Kashmir. This is likely aimed at global powers who might be urging India and Pakistan to de-escalate and talk – Modi is setting terms upfront so the world knows India’s stance is firm and will not soften without concrete action on terror by Pakistan.

 “Dear fellow citizens, today is Buddha Purnima. Lord Buddha showed us the path of peace. And even the path to peace goes through strength. For humanity to progress toward peace and prosperity, for every Indian to live in peace and fulfill the dream of a developed India, India must be strong — and when needed, must use its strength. And in the past few days, India has done just that.”

Explanation: As he moves towards conclusion, PM Modi invokes a spiritual and philosophical reference. Buddha Purnima (the full moon day celebrating the birth of Lord Buddha) fell on that day, and Modi notes this auspicious occasion. He recalls Lord Buddha’s message of peace, aligning himself with a cherished ideal of non-violence and harmony which is deeply respected in India and globally. However, Modi adds a crucial nuance: “the path to peace goes through strength.” This echoes an ancient concept (sometimes phrased as “If you want peace, prepare for war”) and also reflects Buddha’s own life where moral strength was paramount. Modi means that true peace is secured by the capability to defend it. It’s a justification of his government’s actions in moral terms – using force to counter evil is part of achieving lasting peace.

He then ties this to the progress and prosperity of humanity and India. For every Indian to live peacefully and realize the “dream of a developed India” (Viksit Bharat), India “must be strong” and “must use its strength when needed.” In essence, economic development and social prosperity are predicated on security and strength. A “developed India” implies advancements in economy, infrastructure, and society; Modi is saying that can only be achieved in a peaceful environment, which in turn requires a strong defense and willingness to use force against threats. This addresses the broader theme of governance and development: the government’s priority is to make India developed by 2047 (a goal often stated by Modi), and ensuring security is a foundational requirement for that – you cannot have investment, tourism, or upliftment if terrorism runs rampant.

By saying “in the past few days, India has done just that,” Modi underscores that India demonstrated its strength to preserve peace, exemplified by Operation Sindoor’s success. He casts the military action not as warmongering but as a means to restore peace and stability. This part of the speech helps portray the government as both peace-seeking and strong-willed, wrapping up the heavy talk of military force in the higher purpose of peace and development. It resonates domestically (people take pride that India acted forcefully yet remains righteous) and connects to an international audience by rooting India’s tough response in the universally accepted ideal of peace championed by Buddha.

 “Once again, I salute India’s armed forces and defense personnel. I bow to the resolve, the courage, and the unity of every Indian.”

Explanation: As he concludes, PM Modi reiterates his admiration and gratitude. He “salutes” the armed forces and defense personnel again, bookending the speech with praise for the military just as he started with it. This repeated salute reinforces how central their role was and seeks to further boost their morale and the public’s appreciation for them. He then says “I bow to the resolve, courage, and unity of every Indian.” This is acknowledging the people of India – their steadfastness, bravery, and above all the unity they showed in this crisis. By “bowing,” Modi humbly credits the citizens for standing together irrespective of differences. It underscores a theme: that India’s strength comes not just from weapons but from the collective will and solidarity of its people. It’s a unifying note, suggesting that government and citizens together faced the challenge. This line also implicitly thanks political parties, community leaders, and ordinary folks who set aside differences to support the national interest. It’s a reaffirmation that democracy and unity at home are key to facing external threats. Ending on this note ties up the narrative that everyone had a role – the soldiers fought, and the nation stood as one, and thus India prevailed.

 “Thank you very much. Bharat Mata ki Jai! Bharat Mata ki Jai! Bharat Mata ki Jai!”

Explanation: PM Modi signs off with a polite “Thank you” to the audience and the rousing patriotic chant “Bharat Mata ki Jai!” repeated three times. “Bharat Mata ki Jai” means “Victory to Mother India,” a slogan expressing patriotism and love for the nation. The triple repetition is a common way in Indian oratory to stir national pride and unity. It leaves the viewers with a sense of fervor and collective triumph. This emphatic conclusion serves to uplift the national mood – celebrating India’s strength and praying for the nation’s continued glory. It is also Modi’s way of ending on a note of solidarity, rallying people around the idea of the motherland’s honor and victory. The tone here is confident and triumphant, reinforcing that India has emerged stronger and united from this episode.

---

Key Themes and Announcements in the Address

PM Modi’s speech carried several key policy announcements and thematic messages that mark important shifts in India’s security and foreign policy. Below we summarize the major takeaways:

• Uncompromising Stance on Terrorism: The speech formalized a doctrine of zero tolerance for terrorism, with Modi explicitly stating that this is “not an era of terrorism”. Any terrorist attack on India will be met with decisive retaliation at a time and place of India’s choosing. This signals a shift to preemptive and punitive action against terror threats, a step beyond the reactive measures of the past.

• “Operation Sindoor” as New Normal: Modi declared Operation Sindoor a new benchmark in India’s counter-terrorism policy. By carrying out strikes deep inside Pakistan, India has set a “new normal” – indicating that such cross-border operations may recur whenever provoked. This is a doctrinal change in how India deals with Pakistan-backed terror, embedding the approach of surgical strikes on steroids into official policy.

• Three-Pillar Security Doctrine: Modi outlined three key pillars of India’s new security doctrine vis-à-vis Pakistan:

  1. Decisive Retaliation to Terror: Any attack will trigger a strong response hitting the “roots of terrorism” wherever they may be.
  2. No Nuclear Blackmail: India will not be deterred by Pakistan’s nuclear threats; the “nuclear bluff” has been called. Terror camps hiding behind a nuclear shield will still face precise strikes.
  3. No Distinction Between Terrorists and Sponsors: Pakistan’s state apparatus aiding terrorists will be treated as terrorists themselves. This directly labels Pakistan’s military and intelligence as culpable, reinforcing that state-sponsored terror will invite India’s wrath.

• Firm Conditions for India-Pakistan Engagement: Modi emphatically stated that “terror and talks cannot go hand in hand”, nor can “terror and trade”. All normalization (dialogue, commerce, even water-sharing) is off the table unless terrorism stops. Furthermore, if talks ever occur, they will only concern terrorism and the status of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. This means India has refused any discussion on Kashmir (on India’s side) other than getting Pakistan to vacate PoK. It’s a hardline position that essentially freezes bilateral relations until Pakistan takes visible anti-terror steps.

• Message to the International Community: Throughout the address, Modi subtly and overtly addressed global audiences – framing India’s actions as contributing to global peace (“zero tolerance to terror is a guarantee of a better world”), exposing Pakistan’s role in international terrorism (mentioning 9/11, London attacks ties), and invoking Buddha’s peace message tempered by strength. He sought to justify Operation Sindoor on the world stage as a necessary move against a “terrorist infrastructure” that threatens all nations, not just India. By doing so, Modi aimed to shore up diplomatic support and understanding for India’s tough response.

• National Unity and Resolve: A major theme was the unity of Indians in the face of terror. Modi repeatedly praised how every community and political party united after the Pahalgam attack. This emphasis serves a dual purpose: domestically, it reinforces social cohesion and non-partisanship on security issues; politically, it garners across-the-board legitimacy for the government’s decisions. Modi cast the fight against terrorism as a fight on behalf of every Indian, especially invoking the women of India (through the sindoor metaphor) as symbols of the nation’s honor that must be protected.

• Strength as a Prerequisite for Peace and Development: The address connected the dots between having a strong defense and achieving social and economic goals. Modi’s reference to “fulfilling the dream of a developed India” (Viksit Bharat) by ensuring peace through strength suggests that security is the foundation upon which development projects, economic growth, and social welfare rest. In his governance vision, internal and external security is intertwined with progress – without the former, the latter cannot flourish. This acts as a justification to the public for the high priority (and spending) on defense and security.

• Validation of Indigenous Defense Capabilities: A notable highlight was Modi’s pride in Made-in-India weapons systems proving their mettle during the conflict. He signaled that India’s investment in domestic defense manufacturing has paid off, with the world acknowledging their effectiveness. This boosts the narrative of Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) in defense, potentially aiding future weapons development and exports. It’s both a strategic and economic theme, as a stronger domestic defense industry means more jobs, innovation, and reduced arms imports.

• Pakistan’s Self-Destructive Path: Modi issued a stark warning that Pakistan is harming itself by nurturing terror. The speech implied that Pakistan faces international isolation, internal decay, and potential retaliation that could undermine its stability if it continues on this path. This can be read as an attempt to speak over the head of the Pakistani leadership to its people and to global mediators – essentially saying, for Pakistan’s own good, it should change course. It also justifies India’s stance as ultimately even beneficial for ordinary Pakistanis who, by this logic, are also victims of their regime’s terror policy.

Impact and Future Implications

PM Modi’s May 12, 2025 address – and the policies enunciated in it – have significant immediate and long-term implications for India’s foreign and domestic policy. Here we analyze the impact and what to expect going forward:

1. Indo-Pak Relations Enter a New Phase of Confrontation and Deterrence: The speech formalized an icy stance: no talks or business with Pakistan until terror ceases. This means we can expect a prolonged period of diplomatic freeze or very limited engagement between New Delhi and Islamabad. Routine diplomatic channels might remain for de-confliction (as seen by the DGMOs talk), but high-level dialogues or summits are off the table. Tensions may remain high, though open conflict is not desired by either side. India’s open warning that it will hit terror sites despite nuclear threats could deter Pakistan’s security establishment from supporting large-scale attacks, at least in the near term – they now know India’s likely response will be severe. However, it also means if another major terrorist attack emanating from Pakistan occurs, India is virtually obliged by its new doctrine to respond with force again, to maintain credibility. This raises the stakes of any future incidents and could lead to more frequent cycles of confrontation. The world might see a South Asia where brief military exchanges (confined and swift, as Operation Sindoor was) become an accepted reality, unless Pakistan substantively reins in militants.

2. Counter-Terrorism Strategy – Beyond Borders: Internally, the address cements a more muscular security posture. Indian security forces and intelligence are now empowered by policy to pursue terrorists across the LoC/International Border, not just contain them at home. We might see increased intelligence operations and surveillance to pre-empt threats, more frequent cross-border small strikes or covert actions, and robust border management. The government will likely invest more in military readiness – the speech’s boast of being on high alert with full tri-services coordination will translate into sustained deployment and vigilance on the western front. Additionally, Modi’s emphasis on unity against terror could further harden India’s domestic counter-terror laws and operations, aiming for zero tolerance towards extremist cells or radicalization within India as well. This could mean continued strong measures in Jammu & Kashmir to prevent infiltration and recruitment, and diplomatic campaigns globally to blacklist Pakistan-based terrorist entities.

3. Diplomatic and Global Fallout: Internationally, Modi’s hard line is both a challenge and an opportunity. By effectively stating Pakistan must earn its way back to talks by cleaning house, India is trying to condition global expectations. Major powers like the U.S. and those in Europe will likely support India’s right to self-defense and its demand that Pakistan curb terror (indeed, many had grown impatient with Pakistan’s duplicity). However, they also fear nuclear escalation. After Operation Sindoor, reports indicated the U.S. intervened quietly to de-escalate, especially when Pakistan hinted at invoking nuclear options. Going forward, global players might increase pressure on Pakistan to crack down on groups like LeT, JeM to avoid triggering India’s doctrine. Conversely, some countries may urge India to show restraint to prevent war. India’s stance of linking talks to PoK and terror only will get tacit support from those who see it as logical, but it also means the Kashmir issue remains a flashpoint with no dialogue in sight. China, for instance, might be uneasy as it has investments in Pakistan (CPEC runs through PoK) – Modi’s mention of PoK could irk Beijing. Yet China officially also urges stability, so it may counsel Pakistan privately. Another implication is on multilateral forums: India may ramp up efforts to isolate Pakistan – for example, by pushing for terror listings at the UN, and leveraging bodies like FATF to keep Pakistan on a tight leash regarding terror financing. Modi’s framing of the narrative – invoking global terror incidents and Buddha – was to gather international moral high ground, which likely helped India avoid major criticism for its military actions. We can expect India to continue such diplomatic messaging to ensure the world sees its moves as part of a fight against global terrorism, not regional adventurism.

4. Internal Politics and Governance: Domestically, the speech and the successful Operation Sindoor bolster Modi’s image as a strong, decisive leader on national security. The all-party unity during the crisis might, however, be tested over time. Already, opposition voices (e.g., the Congress party) critiqued that Modi’s address was “much delayed” and pointed out he didn’t mention certain controversies (such as a claim by former US President Trump that he stopped a supposed Indo-Pak nuclear escalation). But by and large, on national security, opposition parties in India tend to align with the government publicly. The government is also likely to increase budgets for defense, border infrastructure, and intelligence. Policy-wise, linking security with development (as Modi did) means areas like Kashmir may see a dual-pronged approach: heavy security action on one hand, and development projects on the other to win hearts. Modi explicitly tying developed India dreams to peace will likely justify continued significant expenditure on the military as an investment in a stable environment for growth.

5. Economic and Social Development Considerations: While the speech was security-centric, it has indirect economic implications. Stability and security are expected to foster a better climate for business and tourism (the Pahalgam attack hit tourism, which is a key industry in Kashmir; ending such terror is necessary to restore economic activity there). If Operation Sindoor and its doctrine deter major attacks, the long-term benefit could be improved regional stability, which helps markets and investment sentiment. However, there is also a cost: heightened military posture means higher defense spending and possibly investor caution if tit-for-tat incidents continue. India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty obligations (hinted by “water and blood cannot flow together”) could affect agriculture in Pakistan and raise humanitarian questions, but also signals to investors that India is serious about leveraging all tools against terrorism.

On social development, one positive impact of Modi’s messaging on unity is that it may reduce communal tensions internally – the fact he highlighted terrorists trying to divide Indians by religion and that all communities stood together is a rejection of communal divisiveness. If taken in earnest, it reinforces secular unity, which is important for social harmony and development. The success against terrorists also provides a sense of security among the populace, which is conducive to normal life and growth.

6. Military Modernization and Self-Reliance: A significant future impact will be on India’s defense modernization. Modi’s pride in indigenous weapon performance will likely accelerate policies like Make in India in defense, investments in R&D, and procurement of advanced systems. The armed forces, seeing political will for bold action, might push for faster acquisition of force projection capabilities (drones, precision munitions, air defense upgrades, etc.). India may also refine its nuclear posture; if it won’t be blackmailed by nukes, it will ensure its second-strike and missile defense are robust. Over time, India’s demonstrated capability might also act as deterrence beyond Pakistan – sending a message to other neighbors (like China, which India has a border standoff with, though that’s a different context) that India can and will use force if provoked.

7. International Relations – New Alignments: With Pakistan’s intransigence, India may deepen ties with other neighbors and allies. India might also engage more with Gulf countries regarding Pakistan, as they have influence. Notably, after the conflict, countries like the UAE publicly welcomed the ceasefire and stressed regional stability. We might see a more explicit global anti-terror coalition attitude from India, leveraging forums like G20 (which India chaired in 2023) or the UN to keep focus on cross-border terrorism. Modi’s invocation of global terrorism examples and Buddha’s peace is aligning India with a broader international consensus against terror. In the long run, if Pakistan continues to falter, India might even seek to marginalize Pakistan in regional groups (SAARC has been moribund largely due to this issue). Alternatively, Pakistan, under pressure, might partially comply – e.g., prosecuting a few terror leaders – which India will welcome but verify over time before changing its stance.

In summary, PM Modi’s address signaled a transformative shift in India’s approach: from reactive restraint to proactive defense. The immediate impact was to bolster national morale and send an unequivocal warning to Pakistan. Moving forward, India has set a precedent that could either deter hostile actions or, if tested, lead to rapid military escalation – albeit in controlled, precise ways. The speech’s broader message that strength underpins peace encapsulates the Modi doctrine: India seeks peace and development, but will unflinchingly use its strength to secure them. This approach will shape India’s security policy and its relations in the region for the foreseeable future.

By laying out both the transcript and the context so transparently, Modi has made his government’s intentions clear to all stakeholders: Indian citizens, Pakistan, and the world. As things stand post-May 2025, any shift in South Asian dynamics will largely depend on whether Pakistan heeds the call to dismantle terror networks or continues on its present course. India’s government, on its part, has broadcast that it is prepared for either scenario – pursuing peace if possible, but ready to act militarily to ensure the security and unity of the nation as a non-negotiable priority.

Sources:

1. Financial Express – Full text of PM Modi’s speech on Operation Sindoor
2. Press Information Bureau (Government of India) – English rendering of PM’s address to the Nation, May 12, 2025 (via Daily Excelsior, Newsdrum)
3. The Indian Express – Pankaj Saran, “After Operation Sindoor, a new normal with Pakistan”
4. Hindustan Times – “Now every terrorist knows price of removing women’s Sindoor”: highlights of Modi’s address
5. Times of India – “Operation Sindoor created a ‘new normal’: PM Modi's strong warning to Pakistan”
6. Times of India – “‘Water and blood cannot flow together’: Modi signals no reversal on Indus Waters Treaty suspension”
7. Daily Excelsior – “Not an era of war, not of terrorism either: PM Modi…” (Full text and analysis)
8. Indian Express – “Watch: PM Modi addresses nation for first time since Op Sindoor” (Key quotes)
9. Deccan Herald – “Won’t tolerate nuclear blackmail…: PM Modi” (PTI report)