Answer

Introduction

From prolonged diplomatic engagement and strategic restraint to surgical strikes responses, India’s Pakistan policy has undergone a decisive transformation after 2016, reflecting growing intolerance towards cross-border terrorism and a shift towards calibrated kinetic deterrence.

Body

Reasons Behind the Paradigm Shift

• Terror Persistence: Despite repeated dialogue efforts, Pakistan-backed terror attacks continued, weakening India’s faith in engagement-based normalization.
  Eg: Uri (2016), Pulwama (2019), and Pahalgam attacks despite repeated diplomatic outreach.
• Dialogue Failure: Peace initiatives repeatedly collapsed due to military-backed terror actions from Pakistan, eroding faith in “talks and terror together.”
  Eg: Lahore Bus Diplomacy (1999) followed by Kargil War; Prime Minister Modi’s Lahore visit (2015) followed by Pathankot attack.
• Domestic Pressure: Rising public demand for visible retaliation against terrorism pushed governments towards assertive military responses instead of restrained diplomacy.
• Military Capability: Improved intelligence, precision strike capability, drones, and special forces enabled limited cross-border retaliation without full-scale war.
  Eg: Balakot airstrike (2019) demonstrated India’s willingness to cross the LoC and international boundary.
• Deterrence Signalling: India sought to establish clear red lines by imposing costs on terror infrastructure and signalling accountability of the Pakistani state itself.

Effectiveness in Ensuring Regional Stability

• Raised Costs: Kinetic responses increased operational and diplomatic costs for Pakistan-sponsored terror networks.
  Eg: Destruction of launch pads during Surgical Strikes (2016).
• Strategic Clarity: India established predictable retaliation thresholds, reducing ambiguity regarding its response to major terror attacks.
• Global Support: India gained wider international legitimacy for counter-terror operations by consistently highlighting cross-border terrorism.
  Eg: FATF grey-listing pressures on Pakistan over terror financing.
• Deterrence Value: Visible retaliation created short-term deterrence and disrupted infiltration infrastructure along the Line of Control.
• Domestic Confidence: Assertive responses strengthened public confidence in state capacity and military preparedness.

Challenges to Regional Security Despite Transition

• Nuclear Shadow: Escalation risks remain high because both India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed states.
• Proxy Continuity: Pakistan continues supporting proxy groups as low-cost strategic assets despite military retaliation.
• Dialogue Vacuum: Absence of sustained diplomatic engagement increases risks of miscalculation and unmanaged crises.
  Eg: Composite Dialogue and Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue remain suspended.
• Humanitarian Strain: Suspension of bilateral mechanisms affects civilians, prisoners, fishermen, and divided families.
• Regional Instability: Persistent hostility undermines South Asian regional cooperation, trade, and connectivity initiatives.
  Eg: SAARC integration remains weakened due to India-Pakistan tensions.

Conclusion

India’s shift towards kinetic deterrence has strengthened strategic signalling against terrorism, yet durable regional stability requires combining credible military deterrence with calibrated diplomacy, humanitarian engagement, and sustained international pressure on Pakistan to dismantle terror infrastructure permanently.

DOWNLOAD PDF