Usage of terrorism as instrument of statecraft simply unacceptable: Jaishankar

S. Jaishankar rejected the idea that governments can use terrorism to advance national goals. He said such use is “simply unacceptable” and can never be justified or rationalised. His point is that political objectives cannot excuse attacks that threaten peace and civilian security.

He linked terrorism with the wider need for peace. Speaking in New Delhi, he said war anywhere threatens peace everywhere. He cited the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and West Asia, and said dialogue and diplomacy are the only solution. He also argued that terrorism remains possible when states finance, support, or shelter violent groups.

Jaishankar said stronger international resolve is needed against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. He did not name a country, but warned that some governments still place political calculations above lessons from history. His remarks call for consistent rejection of state support, rather than selective condemnation.

Terrorism generally means deliberate violence, or threats of violence, designed to create fear and pressure governments or societies for political, ideological, or religious aims. The article does not define the term formally. Its focus is the special danger of states treating terrorism as a policy tool rather than confronting it as a crime and security threat.

“Statecraft” means the methods a government uses to pursue national objectives. Therefore, using terrorism as an instrument of statecraft can include financing a violent group, supplying weapons or training, directing attacks, or providing a safe haven. The mechanism is indirect pressure: a government seeks influence while creating distance from the violence.

Jaishankar rejected this practice in absolute terms. He said it cannot be justified or rationalised. The article presents terrorism as a threat to peace and urges countries to counter it in every form. It also warns that tolerance by some states allows the threat to continue.

Terrorism is a worldwide problem, but its scale changes from year to year. The supplied article gives no totals for attacks, deaths, or affected countries. Recent Global Terrorism Index reporting, which is outside the article, recorded at least one terrorism death in 66 countries during 2024 and thousands of deaths globally.

These figures measure only incidents classified as terrorism under a particular research method. Counts can differ because databases use different definitions, sources, and reporting standards. Some attacks occur in active war zones, where separating terrorism from battlefield violence can be difficult. The human cost includes deaths, injuries, displacement, fear, and damage to public life.

The article’s central point is not a number but the continuing international danger. Jaishankar said terrorism remains a deadly threat to peace because some states do not display zero tolerance. He called for sharper awareness, stronger resolve, and action against terrorism in all its forms.

Governments may back violent groups when they believe indirect pressure will advance national interests. Possible goals include weakening a rival, influencing a neighbouring country, contesting territory, or gaining leverage without openly sending troops. These motives are widely discussed in security studies, but the article does not assign any such motive to a named government.

Support can take several forms. Financing buys weapons, recruits, and operations. Training improves a group’s ability to attack. Political or diplomatic backing can reduce isolation. A safe haven lets members plan, move, recruit, and recover with less fear of arrest. Together, these forms of support can make violence more persistent and harder to defeat.

Jaishankar said terrorism continues because not all states show zero tolerance. He warned that political calculations sometimes take precedence despite historical lessons. His proposed response is collective: sharper awareness, stronger resolve, and counterterrorism against every form and manifestation, rather than selective acceptance.

State tolerance can turn a local militant threat into a durable regional problem. When a group receives money, weapons, training, or shelter, it can recruit more effectively and sustain operations. Governments may then respond with force, sanctions, or cross-border action, increasing the risk of escalation and retaliation.

The security mechanism is contagious instability. Attacks can cross borders, disrupt diplomacy, displace communities, and encourage rival states to support competing groups. Safe havens also weaken accountability because perpetrators may avoid arrest. The article does not list a particular incident, but it identifies terrorism as another deadly threat to peace.

Jaishankar argued that peace is indivisible: war anywhere threatens peace everywhere. He called for stronger global resolve against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. His warning implies that selective tolerance creates long-term costs, while consistent rejection and cooperation offer a stronger basis for regional and global security.

History contains examples of governments using violence, covert operations, or armed partners to pursue political goals. Libya was held responsible by international authorities for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Iran has also been widely documented by governments and researchers as supporting Hezbollah, an armed political organisation. These examples are outside the supplied article.

The mechanism differs by case. Direct state agents can carry out an attack while officials deny or conceal responsibility. Proxy groups let governments provide money, weapons, training, or safe haven while maintaining political distance. Such relationships can pressure rivals, but they also create retaliation, sanctions, diplomatic crises, and prolonged conflict.

Jaishankar did not name any country or historical episode. He said history holds many lessons, yet some states still allow political calculations to take precedence. His conclusion was that terrorism must be opposed collectively, in all forms and manifestations, rather than treated as an acceptable instrument.

International law is built around rules against unlawful force, attacks on civilians, and interference in another state’s affairs. State sovereignty means each country has authority over its territory and political order. A government that sends, directs, or shelters violent actors across a border challenges both protections and the target state’s ability to keep people safe.

The key mechanism is responsibility. A state may be held accountable when it directly uses violence or knowingly supports an armed group operating against another country. Financing, training, or safe haven can make violence appear indirect, but it still enables cross-border harm. Such conduct can trigger demands for accountability, diplomatic action, or lawful defensive measures.

The supplied article does not discuss specific legal rules. It does, however, say terrorism as statecraft is unacceptable and never justifiable or rationalisable. Jaishankar’s call for zero tolerance reflects the broader principle that political goals cannot override peace, sovereignty, and protection from terrorism.