Terror as statecraft ‘simply unacceptable’: Jaishankar at Chinmaya event

Using terrorism as an instrument of statecraft means treating terrorist violence as a tool of government policy. A state may direct, fund, arm, shelter, or politically enable violent groups to pressure another country or influence events. This matters because it blurs the line between state conflict and criminal violence, making accountability harder and threatening civilians and international peace.

The article gives no named example of a government using terrorism. Jaishankar said some countries still tolerate terrorism because they lack zero tolerance, while political calculations take priority over historical lessons. The key mechanism is political support or permissiveness: terrorist groups can continue operating when authorities do not decisively stop them.

Jaishankar urged stronger global resolve against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. His position is that no political objective can make terrorism legitimate. The wider implication is that states must reject such tactics consistently, cooperate against them, and avoid allowing short-term political interests to weaken collective security.

Terrorism can involve both states and non-state groups, but their roles differ. Non-state groups may plan and carry out attacks. Governments may fight them, prosecute supporters, or protect civilians. In some cases, states may allegedly provide money, weapons, training, safe haven, intelligence, or political cover. A government can also tolerate terrorism by failing to act decisively.

The article does not name any country or non-state group. Jaishankar said some countries continue to tolerate terrorism because they do not demonstrate zero tolerance. He also said political considerations sometimes take precedence over lessons from history. These remarks describe possible state roles without assigning responsibility to a particular actor.

Effective counter-terrorism therefore requires separating perpetrators from supporters and identifying evidence-based responsibilities. States must prevent their territory and resources from enabling attacks. They must also cooperate against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, while respecting lawful processes and protecting civilians from violence.

Terrorism is a global problem, but the article provides no annual total for affected countries or people. There is also no single universal measure of “affected.” Researchers may count attacks, deaths, injuries, people displaced, disrupted communities, or countries experiencing at least one incident. These totals change from year to year and depend on definitions and reporting quality.

Jaishankar described terrorism as a deadly threat to peace and said it continues because not all states show zero tolerance. His remarks establish broad international concern, not a statistical estimate. The article also links terrorism to ongoing conflicts, but does not quantify their human or economic effects.

A reliable answer would require a specified year, definition, and dataset. Without those details, giving an exact number of countries or people would risk misleading readers. The key message supported by the article is that terrorism is shared across borders and demands stronger international awareness, resolve, and cooperation.

A government might tolerate or support terrorism when leaders believe it serves immediate political, military, or strategic goals. They may see violence as useful against rivals, avoid confronting powerful domestic or foreign partners, or calculate that the costs will fall mainly on others. Such choices can produce long-term instability, retaliation, and international condemnation.

Jaishankar identified political calculation as a central reason some countries fail to show zero tolerance. He did not name any government or provide a specific case. His warning is that history has already supplied lessons, yet some states still allow short-term interests to override the wider danger posed by terrorism.

The consequence is continued violence and weaker international cooperation. Jaishankar called for sharper awareness of terrorism as a shared threat and stronger resolve against it in every form. His argument implies that consistent opposition is more effective than selective condemnation based on political convenience.

When war or terrorism disrupts trade, energy, food, migration, or finance, other countries can face shortages, higher costs, slower growth, and insecurity. Businesses may lose access to supplies or markets. Governments may need to support displaced people or protect transport routes. Financial uncertainty can also reduce investment and weaken household incomes.

The article explains the mechanism through intricate supply chains, globalised markets, and common resources. It says progress and prosperity are the flip side of conflict and violence, and both are indivisible. A conflict in one region can therefore affect production, prices, transport, and access elsewhere, even when distant countries are not fighting.

Jaishankar warned that war anywhere threatens peace everywhere. He referred to ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and West Asia and said dialogue and diplomacy are the only way to resolve them. The forward need is stronger cooperation to protect peace and shared prosperity.

International tools against terrorism include intelligence sharing, coordinated law enforcement, border cooperation, financial controls, prosecution, prevention efforts, and joint action against groups and their supporters. Governments can also use diplomatic pressure and international institutions to build common standards. Any response should target terrorism in all its forms while protecting civilians and lawful rights.

For wars, dialogue and diplomacy offer channels for communication, negotiation, mediation, ceasefires, and political settlements. Jaishankar said India echoed the broader international sentiment that these were the only way to resolve the two major ongoing conflicts. The article identifies Ukraine and West Asia as the conflicts requiring such efforts.

Jaishankar also called for sharper global awareness and stronger resolve against terrorism. These tools work best when countries apply them consistently rather than according to short-term political calculations. The article’s forward message is collective action: states must cooperate to protect peace, reduce violence, and prevent conflicts from spreading instability.

Peace and prosperity are described as indivisible because countries now depend on one another for production, trade, markets, and common resources. Conflict damages more than the place where fighting occurs. It can interrupt supplies, reduce economic opportunity, increase insecurity, and prevent societies from advancing together. Stability therefore supports development across borders.

Jaishankar said the world cannot become “half prosperous and half denied” in an era of intricate supply chains, globalised markets, and common resources. The mechanism is interdependence: disruption in one part of the system can affect production, access, and welfare elsewhere. Economic exclusion and insecurity can then reinforce political instability.

His warning points to a shared responsibility to protect peace and enable broad-based progress. The article links ongoing wars and terrorism to this wider challenge. Stronger cooperation, diplomacy, and counter-terrorism are presented as necessary not only for security, but also for global prosperity and stability.