SEETHING in extreme anger after the debilitating 26/11 terror attacks on Mumbai, a few top Congress leaders from Maharashtra had contacted Israeli spy agency Mossad for a covert operation to eliminate the terror masterminds in Pakistan. The operation was well on course of execution before the central leadership stalled it. Why? Restraint was the buzzword for the UPA Government despite the humiliation heaped by a motley group of extremists who held the nation to ransom for three days. The Government had opted for international praise for showing restraint rather than sending a chilling message to the terror groups operating out of Pakistan. The Indian response reeked of incompetence as it failed the country thirsting for revenge. Contrast this with the Israeli response to Islamic radicalism. The country has shown great steel by taking the attack right into the dens of Hamas and Hezbollah. It has unleashed mayhem on the Jihadist groups, taking out their leadership, hammering out their headquarters, conveying a message in no uncertain terms – “Don’t mess with Israel”. The malady of Islamic radicalism has to be dealt with unmitigated viciousness.

 

Jihadi terror deserves no sympathy, no mercy. It is a malignancy grown on a deadly ideology of hate, violence and terror. India has been confronting Jihadist threat from Pakistan for decades. Majority of Jihadist attacks in India have come from Pakistan and its terror proxies. The 26/11 attacks remain the most daring operation against India and it deserved a ruthless response. Sadly, the UPA Government walked into the trap of international opinion-makers who were off the blocks to praise India’s restraint at a time when the country was burning with rage. Many leaders in the Government were in favour of a retaliation to send an emphatic reminder to Pakistan. Pranab Mukherjee, then External Affairs Minister, had also gone public speaking of keeping all options open. The military brass was waiting for strikes to cripple the Lashkar-e-Taiba in Muridke in Pakistan’s Punjab province, or their camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, or against the ISI. Yet, the Government of the day decided to approach meaningless, toothless, and spineless global forums, weeping and wailing to no avail. Former Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon has reasoned the restrained Indian response in his book ‘Choices’.

 

“The simple answer to why India did not immediately attack Pakistan is that after examining the options at the highest levels of Government, the decision makers concluded that more was to be gained from not attacking Pakistan than from attacking it … On sober reflection and in hindsight, I now believe that the decision not to retaliate militarily and to concentrate on diplomatic, covert, and other means was the rightone for that time and place,” Menon has written in his book (Chapter 3: Restraint or Riposte?). Indian officials at that time still pat their own backs about how they handled a very difficult situation. All they did was end up portraying a weak image of India, afraid of taking action against terrorists. The Government simply fell into the well-laid trap of powerful voices in the international community whose double standards on issues of terrorism and military actions have been exposed time and again. Geopolitical considerations and diplomatic niceties come with their own importance but there are occasions when these considerations have to be simply ignored. An armed enemy must be retaliated with an extra-powerful armed response. What India could not do after the 26/11 attack was finally achieved during the 2016 surgical strike by the Indian Army and 2019 Balakot strike on terror hubs in Pakistan by the Indian Air Force (IAF) to avenge Uri and Pulwama terror attacks.

 

It was direct from the Israeli model of taking the fight right to the door of the enemy. This has to remain the template now to tackle Islamic terror emanating from across the border. The Balakot operation was a pre-emptive strike by India against a terrorist training facility. India can still exercise the right of pre-emptive strikes against non-State actors inimical to the country’s security. Growing extremist activities in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir give India the cushion of acting in self-defence and attacking terror hotbeds on the Pakistan soil. The shrill rhetoric emerging from a section of international media holds no power during such strikes. In the present geopolitical conditions, a growing number of States are of the opinion that use of force in self-defence against a non-State actor operating in the territory of another host State can be undertaken if the non-State actor repeatedly undertakes armed attacks and the host State is unwilling to address the threat. The continuous terror attacks in J&K by mujahideens based in Pakistani territories give India a strong case to carry out pre-emptive strikes across the border. The international community is well aware of the overt or covert support to these terror organisations by Pakistan. Like the Israeli action against Hamas and Hezbollah, India, too, has a valid reason to launch limited and targeted attacks on Jihadi terror. And this remains the innate urge of every Indian.n