 |
|
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's recent statements have ignited a renewed debate on India's approach to terrorism, particularly in the context of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11) and subsequent retaliatory actions. Jaishankar sharply criticized the previous Congress-led UPA government's response to 26/11, characterizing it as 'diffident' and lacking decisive action. He contrasted this with the current government's 'zero tolerance' policy, highlighting the surgical strikes in Uri (2016) and Balakot (2019) as examples of a more assertive approach to combating cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan.
The core of Jaishankar's argument rests on the assertion that the Modi government has fundamentally altered India's posture on national security. He contends that the previous administration's inaction following 26/11 stemmed from a perceived cost-benefit analysis, where the potential consequences of retaliating against Pakistan were deemed to outweigh the ramifications of inaction. This assessment, according to Jaishankar, reflects a fundamental difference in strategic thinking between the two administrations. The UPA government's decision to prioritize de-escalation over immediate retaliation, even in the face of a devastating terrorist attack, is presented as a stark contrast to the current government's willingness to engage in cross-border operations.
The Uri and Balakot strikes serve as the central pillars of Jaishankar's argument. He frames these military actions as direct responses to the terrorist attacks in Uri and Pulwama, respectively, illustrating the Modi government's commitment to assertive retaliation. The surgical strike in Uri, launched in response to the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) attack on an Indian army base, and the airstrike in Balakot, following the Pulwama suicide bombing by JeM, are portrayed as strategic decisions reflecting a decisive shift in India's approach to counter-terrorism. These operations, though controversial and subject to varying interpretations regarding their effectiveness, are presented by Jaishankar as evidence of a resolute stance against terrorism.
However, Jaishankar's narrative omits critical analysis of the potential consequences and wider geopolitical implications of these actions. The lack of detailed discussion on the strategic rationale behind these operations, the potential for escalation, and the overall impact on regional stability raises questions about the completeness of his assessment. Furthermore, the comparison between the UPA and the current government's approach overlooks the complex geopolitical landscape and the constraints faced by both administrations. The international pressure, the potential for further escalation, and the delicate balance of power in the region were likely significant factors in the decision-making processes of both governments.
The 2008 Mumbai attacks, a watershed moment in India's fight against terrorism, remain a sensitive issue with lingering questions regarding the effectiveness of counter-terrorism strategies. The attacks, carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives, resulted in widespread devastation and loss of life. The scale and brutality of the attacks underscored the urgent need for comprehensive counter-terrorism measures, both domestically and internationally. Jaishankar's emphasis on the difference between the two governments' approaches highlights the ongoing debate on the optimal balance between deterrence, retaliation, and diplomatic engagement in addressing cross-border terrorism.
Ultimately, Jaishankar's statements offer a partisan perspective on India's counter-terrorism policy. While his account underscores a shift towards a more assertive approach under the Modi government, it lacks a comprehensive analysis of the complex factors that shaped the responses of both the UPA and the current administration. A thorough evaluation requires a deeper consideration of the geopolitical context, the potential risks and benefits of various strategies, and a nuanced understanding of the evolving nature of terrorism in South Asia. The debate on India's approach to terrorism continues, demanding a balanced assessment that goes beyond the simplified narrative of decisive action versus inaction.