(By Faraz Ahmed)
Introduction: Contextualizing Doval’s Speech in a Polarized Discourse
Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval’s address at the Viksit Bharat Young Leaders Dialogue on January 10, 2026, has sparked controversy by invoking “revenge” for historical wrongs—temple lootings, village burnings, and civilizational destruction during medieval invasions. While presented as a motivational call for youth to build a strong India, the remarks have been widely criticized as communal and inflammatory, particularly by figures like Mehbooba Mufti, who termed them a “dog whistle” normalizing violence against Muslims. Doval’s narrative is not merely motivational but a deliberate reframing of history that vilifies the very cultural and religious heritage t forms the basis of Pakistan’s identity. This article examines the speech’s implications, exposing its selective amnesia, hypocrisy, and potential to exacerbate regional tensions.
The Full Context of Doval’s Remarks: Beyond Selective Quotes
Doval stated that India was once an advanced, peaceful civilization that never attacked others or destroyed foreign temples, yet due to security lapses, it suffered invasions, temple destructions, village lootings, and helplessness. He clarified that “revenge is not a good word, but it is a powerful force,” urging youth to channel this into comprehensive national strength—economic, social, military, and cultural—to prevent future subjugation. He invoked freedom fighters like Gandhi, Bose, and Bhagat Singh, praising current leadership for transformative progress.
However, this framing conveniently omits that many “invaders” originated from regions now part of Pakistan or traversed its territory. Figures like Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad bin Qasim, and later Mughals are celebrated in Pakistani historiography as bringers of Islam, cultural enrichment, and administrative advancements. Doval’s portrayal reduces these complex conquests to mere “lootings” and “destructions,” ignoring the syncretic Indo-Islamic civilization that emerged, including architectural marvels like the Taj Mahal and contributions to art, science, and governance. By casting medieval Muslim rulers solely as destroyers, Doval perpetuates a binary Hindu-victim versus Muslim-aggressor narrative that aligns with majoritarian politics in India, alienating minorities and neighboring states like Pakistan.
Historical Accuracy vs. Selective Memory: Medieval Conquests in Perspective
The medieval period was not one of unmitigated barbarism but of empire-building common across civilizations. Persian and Arabic chronicles, including those by invaders themselves, document temple destructions as acts of war and iconoclasm—practices not unique to Muslim rulers but seen in Byzantine, Roman, and even ancient Indian inter-kingdom conflicts. Aurangzeb’s policies, often cited, were politically motivated against rebellious Hindu kings rather than purely religious. Moreover, many Muslim rulers patronized Hindu temples, employed Hindu administrators, and fostered cultural fusion evident in Sufi traditions that thrive in both India and Pakistan.
Doval’s claim that India “never attacked others” is historically inaccurate. Ancient Indian empires like the Mauryas and Cholas expanded aggressively, and medieval Hindu kings like the Vijayanagara Empire engaged in temple desecrations against rivals. The caste system, as critics like Udit Raj noted, weakened unified resistance, but blaming invasions solely on external forces ignores internal feudal divisions. Pakistan’s narrative emphasizes these conquests as liberating oppressed masses from Brahmanical tyranny, introducing egalitarian Islamic principles. Doval’s “revenge” rhetoric thus revives colonial-era divide-and-rule tactics, portraying Muslims as perpetual outsiders despite centuries of integration.
Partition and Modern Grievances: The Real Source of Regional Tension
If historical “revenge” is invoked, Pakistan has far greater cause for grievance over 1947 Partition, engineered by British and Congress-League politics, resulting in mass migrations, communal riots, and up to two million deaths—disproportionately affecting Muslims fleeing to the new state. Subsequent wars (1948, 1965, 1971), the dismemberment of East Pakistan, and India’s alleged support for Baloch and Sindhi separatists add layers of trauma. India’s handling of Kashmir—revoking Article 370 in 2019, detentions, and communication blackouts—continues this pattern of dominance.
Doval, architect of policies like so called surgical strikes and Balakot airstrikes, embodies this assertive posture. His “revenge” call, framed as defensive, justifies militarized responses to perceived threats, often linked to Pakistan-based groups. Yet, Pakistan views these as pretexts for hegemony, ignoring its own security concerns from Indian-backed terrorism in Balochistan or the TTP menace partly fueled by Afghan-Indian ties. Doval’s speech, delivered amid India’s economic rise, signals intent to dominate South Asia, pressuring smaller neighbors like Pakistan.
Communal Implications and Domestic Hypocrisy in India
Critics rightly highlight the speech’s potential to incite youth against Muslims, already facing lynchings, love-jihad laws, and bulldozer demolitions. Mehbooba Mufti’s “dog whistle” accusation resonates: in a country where history textbooks are rewritten to glorify Hindu rulers and marginalize Muslim contributions, such rhetoric normalizes prejudice. Doval’s position as NSA demands impartiality, yet his words align with RSS-BJP ideology that sees Muslims as remnants of invaders.
Ironically, India’s elite—many with children abroad—preach nationalism while benefiting from global systems. Doval’s son reportedly holds foreign citizenship, echoing Udit Raj’s point. If “revenge” requires sacrifice, why not start internally by addressing poverty, inequality, and farmer distress rather than externalizing blame?
Pakistan’s Path Forward: Strength Through Unity and Diplomacy
Pakistan rejects Doval’s narrative not out of denial but to affirm its legitimate historical and cultural identity. Medieval rulers brought Islam, which enriched the subcontinent and forms Pakistan’s foundation. Instead of revenge cycles, both nations should pursue dialogue, trade, and confidence-building measures. Pakistan’s focus on economic revival, CPEC, and regional connectivity offers a constructive alternative to India’s majoritarian assertiveness.
Doval’s call for strength is valid universally—Pakistan too learns from 1971 and other setbacks by building resilience. But true greatness lies in pluralism, not revenge. India’s Viksit Bharat vision, if inclusive, could benefit the region; if exclusionary, it risks isolation.
Conclusion: Rejecting Divisive Narratives for Regional Peace
Ajit Doval’s “revenge for history” is less about learning from the past and more about mobilizing majoritarian sentiment for political ends. From Pakistan’s perspective, it distorts shared heritage, ignores mutual traumas, and perpetuates conflict. South Asia deserves leaders who heal divisions, not inflame them. By focusing on progress, justice, and mutual respect, both nations can transcend historical burdens.
