Realism, Not Machismo, To Counter Terror – Shifting Sands of India’s Counterterrorism Strategy

Context:

• This article is based on an Editorial “Realism, not machismo, to counter terror” which was published in the Hindu. There are animated discussions on social media on the Israel- Hamas conflict, with a large number of people sympathising with Israel, which suffered an unprecedented attack by Hamas.

Shifting Sands of India’s Counterterrorism Strategy

• Trauma of Mumbai attack: This is perhaps because India suffered through the Mumbai attacks in 2008 (known as 26/11), among others.
• Remarkable act of restraint: The New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, published an article praising former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for not attacking Pakistan immediately after the Mumbai attacks.
  • Although, Social media condemned this act as India prides itself on its air strikes on Balakot in Pakistan in 2019 to avenge the Pulwama terror attack.

A well-thought-out strategy:

• Delicate act: Counterterrorism is to be carried out with due thought and realism as India showed.
• Highlighting the cause: Terrorists attack with the intention of provoking a reaction that will draw attention to their cause.
  • If India had attacked Pakistan following the attacks of September 11, 2001, it would have resulted in a nuclear standoff with the international focus shifting to ‘solve’ the India-Pakistan issue, which centres around Kashmir, rather than terrorism itself.
• Global Response to Palestine cause: The Palestinian problem has now gained centre stage as a result of Israel’s brutal response. 

Benefits of Active diplomacy followed by India to not attack Pakistan:

• Deepening of ties with US: After the attack, India was hailed as a “responsible nuclear power.
  • Just one month prior to the Mumbai attack, the India-U.S. Civil Nuclear agreement was operationalised. 
• Impact on the economy: A conflict would have led to the depletion of global finances, in addition to accusations from the international community. 
• Revised version of Kerry-Lugar Bill: The U.S. Senate’s passage of the Bill in 2009 strained relations with Pakistan which had clauses perceived as offensive by it. 
• Economic downturn of Pakistan: Foreign Direct Investment declined by 42% by 2010, as Pakistan was widely considered associated with the ‘war on terror.’ 
  • The situation intensified when the United Nations labeled Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) a terrorist organization in 2010.

Conclusion:

• Downfall of Pakistan: It can be argued that the collapse of present-day Pakistan is in part due to India’s decision not to attack and instead formulate an international response. 
• Growth of Indian Economy: India paved the way for a $3 trillion economy, while Pakistan’s economic prospects continue to decline. None of this might have happened if India had opted for war.