A decisive action

Thursday's strikes send a strong signal to Pakistan

Early Thursday morning India followed through on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assurance that those responsible for the September 18 attack on an Indian army base in Uri, near the Line of Control, which resulted in the death of 19 soldiers, “would not go unpunished”. The Special Forces conducted surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC) to destroy seven terrorist launch pads. The Narendra Modi government’s response must be welcomed as it sends a strong signal to Pakistan that it cannot endlessly pursue its policy to export terror and bleed India through a low-intensity, covert or proxy war. Given the dangerous nature of strikes in inhospitable terrain, the reported death of several terrorists and two Pakistani soldiers without any Indian casualties certainly reflects better on the military’s planning, operational and intelligence capabilities than has been the case over the past few months. Such robust military retaliation has also undoubtedly addressed a vocal section of public opinion. Apart from the fact that the Indian response was sharp and well-focused, what stood out was the maturity with which it was handled by the army and the government.

This was evident in the way the government acted to limit the hostilities. It asked the Director-General of Military Operations to speak to his Pakistani counterpart that the action was over and India didn’t want to escalate it further (at least for now or till further provocation). The government took the Opposition leaders into confidence as well as reached out to the global community to build opinion in support of its operation and convey the message that cross-border terrorism continues to hurt the country. The dramatic late-night strikes were a message that India cannot be taken for granted anymore. The DGMO said that the strikes were based on “very specific and credible information that some terrorist units had positioned themselves... with an aim to carry out infiltration and terrorist strikes”. The Indian authorities subsequently clarified that the strikes were essentially about neutralising the threat to Indian citizens. The strikes, per se, were against terror camps and Pakistan should not resent them as it is in line with its January 2004 commitment to not allow its territory to be used for any terrorist activities against India.

The concern for India, however, is how far are Pakistan’s political commitments in sync with its military and intelligence actions. That is why it is important that India explores all reasonable avenues to impress upon Pakistan that there is zero tolerance for terror. The possible withdrawal of the most favoured nation (MFN) status is a case in point — despite India granting the MFN status to Pakistan, the latter had not yet reciprocated. In terms of foreign policy initiatives India has witnessed mixed success. The boycott of the SAARC summit demonstrated India’s influence with its neighbours, but that does not amount to much. In recent weeks, despite Uri, Pakistan is far from being isolated, principally because its unambiguous client-state status, however amoral, works to its advantage. America, too, has refrained from naming Pakistan in the Uri attack, though there are signs of some diplomatic engagement. This is the hard reality that India needs to confront and address.