 |
|
The article details a significant shift in India's policy towards Pakistan concerning terrorism, marking a departure from a more restrained approach to a doctrine of active retaliation. Following escalating tensions and a ceasefire mediated by the US after India's ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the Indian government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has declared that any future terrorist acts targeting Indian interests will be considered an act of war. This decisive change mirrors the policies of countries like Israel and the United States, who are known for their assertive responses to terrorist threats, often including preemptive strikes and targeted killings. This new stance indicates a fundamental re-evaluation of how India intends to address cross-border terrorism, moving away from primarily treating it as a law and order problem to viewing it as an external aggression necessitating a military response.
The historical context provided in the article highlights India's previous approach, characterized by caution, dialogue, and restrained action. In the past, India responded to terrorist attacks primarily as internal security issues, relying on investigative agencies and diplomatic channels to address the problem. When evidence of external involvement, particularly from Pakistan, emerged, India sought cooperation from the Pakistani government, presenting dossiers and evidence. However, these diplomatic efforts often proved fruitless, with Pakistan frequently denying involvement or providing inadequate responses. Instances involving individuals like Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, who were implicated in major terror attacks in India but were given safe haven and even preferential treatment in Pakistan, exemplify the frustration and ineffectiveness of this approach. The article argues that this lack of cooperation and the perceived impunity with which terrorists operate in Pakistan have led to India's decision to adopt a more aggressive stance.
The core of India's new policy is the determination to retaliate against terrorism with the full spectrum of force available, including precision strikes on terrorists, their headquarters, patrons, and financiers. This signifies an end to the long and frustrating road to justice through diplomacy and a readiness to use military force as a primary tool in combating terrorism. The article emphasizes that India's decision is not just a tactical shift but a strategic one, aimed at shedding the image of a 'soft state' and adopting a policy of zero tolerance. The comparison with Israel and the US highlights India's aspiration to emulate their proactive approach in dealing with threats, including preemptive actions and forceful responses in the aftermath of attacks. This shift is a clear message to Pakistan that India will no longer tolerate its support for terrorism and is prepared to use military force to defend its interests.
The article also delves into the implications of this policy shift for Pakistan. For decades, Pakistan has pursued a policy of supporting terrorist groups, often operating under the protection of its nuclear arsenal, believing that India would be deterred from taking strong action. Despite evidence of Pakistani involvement in terrorist attacks, Pakistan has remained intractable, often denying its role or offering inadequate responses. The article argues that Pakistan's policy has been predicated on the assumption that India would operate below a certain threshold in responding to terrorism. However, India's strategic strikes across the Line of Control after the Pulwama attack and the Balakot airstrikes in response to the 2019 Pulwama attack demonstrated a diminishing tolerance for terrorism and a willingness to use military force against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan.
The new policy, as outlined in the article, represents a significant escalation in the potential for conflict between India and Pakistan. By declaring that any future terrorist attack will be considered an act of war, India has raised the stakes and signaled a willingness to engage in direct military confrontation with Pakistan. This approach carries significant risks, including the potential for miscalculation and escalation. The article concludes with a warning to Pakistan, stating that every life lost in India will be avenged and that if Pakistan continues to support terrorism, it should be prepared to be at war with India. The ceasefire is presented as a reprieve for Pakistan, an opportunity to rethink its policy and its future. However, the underlying message is clear: India is now prepared to use military force to combat terrorism, and Pakistan must reassess its policies accordingly. The shift towards an 'Israel-like' policy is not simply a change in tactics but a fundamental shift in the strategic calculus between the two countries. The future implications of this policy shift are profound and could potentially reshape the geopolitical landscape of the region, leading to a new era of heightened tensions and increased risk of conflict.
The adoption of a more assertive stance against terrorism by India is a multifaceted decision driven by a combination of factors. First and foremost, the perceived ineffectiveness of previous diplomatic and legal approaches in addressing cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan has been a major catalyst. Despite numerous attempts to engage Pakistan in meaningful dialogue and provide evidence of its involvement in terrorist activities, India has consistently faced denial, inaction, or, at best, superficial cooperation. The examples of individuals like Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, who continue to enjoy safe haven and influence within Pakistan despite their implication in numerous terrorist attacks, serve as stark reminders of the limitations of a purely diplomatic approach. This frustration has led to a growing consensus within the Indian government that more forceful measures are necessary to protect national security interests.
Secondly, the evolving nature of terrorism and the increasing sophistication of terrorist groups operating in the region have also contributed to the shift in policy. Terrorist organizations are becoming more adept at exploiting technology, radicalizing individuals, and carrying out complex attacks. This poses a significant challenge to traditional law enforcement and intelligence agencies, necessitating a more proactive and comprehensive approach that includes military intervention. The recognition that terrorism is not merely a law and order problem but a national security threat requiring a strategic response has been a key driver of the policy change.
Thirdly, the changing geopolitical landscape and the emergence of new security paradigms have also influenced India's decision. The experiences of other countries, particularly Israel and the United States, in combating terrorism have provided valuable lessons and insights. These countries have demonstrated the effectiveness of preemptive strikes, targeted killings, and other assertive measures in deterring terrorist attacks and protecting national security. India's decision to emulate these policies is a reflection of its growing confidence and willingness to assert its strategic interests in the region. The shift towards an 'Israel-like' policy is not simply a matter of adopting a particular set of tactics but a broader recognition that a more proactive and assertive approach is necessary to address the evolving security challenges.
Moreover, the political and domestic considerations have also played a significant role in shaping India's new policy. The Indian public has become increasingly vocal in demanding a more robust response to terrorism, particularly in the wake of major attacks. The government's decision to adopt a more assertive stance is, in part, a response to these public sentiments. Additionally, the ruling political party has consistently advocated for a stronger stance against terrorism, and the policy shift is seen as a fulfillment of its electoral promises. The need to maintain public confidence and demonstrate a strong commitment to national security has been a key factor in the government's decision-making process.
However, the adoption of a more assertive policy towards Pakistan carries significant risks and challenges. The potential for escalation and miscalculation is a major concern. Any military action against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan could trigger a retaliatory response, leading to a wider conflict. The presence of nuclear weapons in both countries further complicates the situation and increases the stakes. The need to carefully manage the risks of escalation and maintain communication channels with Pakistan is paramount.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of a purely military approach in combating terrorism is also questionable. Military action can disrupt terrorist networks and degrade their capabilities, but it cannot address the root causes of terrorism, such as poverty, inequality, and political grievances. A comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy must also include efforts to address these underlying factors and promote peace and stability in the region. The need for a multifaceted approach that combines military, diplomatic, and developmental efforts is essential for achieving long-term success in combating terrorism.
In conclusion, India's decision to adopt a more assertive policy towards Pakistan is a complex and consequential decision driven by a combination of factors. The perceived ineffectiveness of previous approaches, the evolving nature of terrorism, the changing geopolitical landscape, and the domestic political considerations have all contributed to the shift in policy. While the new policy carries significant risks and challenges, it also reflects a growing determination to protect national security interests and assert India's strategic role in the region. The success of this policy will depend on careful management of the risks of escalation, a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes of terrorism, and sustained efforts to promote peace and stability in the region. The shift towards an 'Israel-like' policy is not simply a change in tactics but a fundamental re-evaluation of India's strategic posture and its approach to combating terrorism.
Source: Terror is act of war: Before ceasefire came India's Israel-like shift in policy towards Pakistan