NEW DELHI: External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has said terrorism cannot be justified as an instrument of statecraft, in remarks reported on 25-26 October 2026 that restate one of the central planks of India’s foreign policy. The use of terrorism as an instrument of statecraft is “simply unacceptable”, he said, according to the reported remarks. The formulation leaves little room for ambiguity: in India’s stated position, terrorism is not a legitimate tool of foreign policy under any justification.
The remarks come at a moment of heightened regional tension, when India’s public messaging on cross-border terrorism has been consistently firm. Successive Indian governments have argued that the international community must draw a clear line between terrorism and other forms of political violence, and that states which sponsor or shelter terrorist groups should face consequences. Jaishankar’s latest intervention fits that pattern, presenting India’s position as a matter of principle rather than as a response to a single incident.
Separately, India criticised Pakistan at the United Nations, with India’s side saying, in headline summaries of the 26 October news listings, that Pakistan’s military remains the country’s “real rulers”. That characterisation was attributed to India’s intervention at the UN as reported in those listings. This article does not identify a specific UN session or resolution, and does not reproduce a verbatim speech beyond the phrases given here, because those details were not part of the verified reporting available. The significance, however, is clear: India used a multilateral forum to press its long-standing argument about civil-military relations in Pakistan and their bearing on regional security.
The two strands of messaging — Jaishankar’s statement on statecraft and India’s criticism at the UN — point in the same direction. Together, they signal that New Delhi intends to keep terrorism and Pakistan’s role at the centre of its diplomatic argument, even as it pursues broader partnerships on trade, technology and defence. For India’s partners, the message is that counter-terrorism cooperation cannot be treated as separate from questions about state sponsorship and accountability.
India’s position also reflects a wider international debate about how terrorism should be defined and addressed. New Delhi has long pressed for a comprehensive convention on international terrorism at the UN, arguing that definitional disputes have allowed some states to distinguish between terrorists they oppose and those they tolerate. Jaishankar’s insistence that terrorism as statecraft is unacceptable is part of that larger diplomatic effort to close what India sees as loopholes in the global response.
In other developments, Delhi recorded its lowest minimum temperature of the month at 17 degrees Celsius. The Centre has also given Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh a one-year extension, providing continuity in the government’s national-security team at a time of regional uncertainty.
Elsewhere in the world, France tightened security ahead of large-scale public demonstrations, while Saudi Arabia reported intercepting missiles and drones launched by Iran-backed Houthis. Those developments, reported separately, underline that security pressures are not confined to South Asia, and that governments across regions are contending with threats that cross borders and test state capacity.
For India, the immediate question is how its firm rhetoric translates into diplomatic outcomes. Statements at the UN and by senior ministers set the tone, but their effect depends on whether other countries endorse the same standards and act on them. Jaishankar’s remarks suggest New Delhi will continue to press that case publicly and persistently, framing terrorism not as a bilateral grievance alone but as a challenge to the rules-based international order itself. That framing invites the wider world to judge state sponsorship by a single standard.
