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 on October 7. This is perhaps because India went through the trauma of the Mumbai attacks in 2008 (known as 26/11), among others. Opinion, however, became more strident when The New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, published an article last month praising former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s “remarkable act of restraint” in not attacking Pakistan immediately after the Mumbai attacks. Some social media warriors were outraged, condemning India’s past inaction as an act of cowardice. This is perhaps because India prides itself on its air strikes on Balakot in Pakistan in 2019 to avenge the Pulwama terror attack.
A well-thought-out strategy
But counter-terrorism is a delicate act; it is to be carried out with due thought and realism, not raging machismo, as India showed. First, terrorists strike in the hope of eliciting a response that will highlight their cause. Hamas attacked Israel when the Saudis and Israelis were on a path to peace, which would have led to the Palestinian cause taking a back seat. With Israel’s violent response, the Palestinian issue has taken centre stage now. Let’s assume that after 26/11, India had bombed major cities and cantonments in Pakistan. That would have led to a nuclear stand-off, with the international focus shifting to how to ‘solve’ the India-Pakistan issue, which centres around Kashmir, rather than terrorism itself.
Here is what happened by doing nothing. The gravity of the 26/11 attacks was equated to that of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. Soon after the attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush sent a strong statement of support to India, world leaders condemned the attacks, and India was praised for being a “responsible nuclear power”. The path-breaking India-U.S. Civil Nuclear agreement was operationalised just a month before the attacks in Mumbai. In addition, there was another issue. The global financial crisis had just hit, with the collapse of the Lehman Brothers. In India too, the stock market crashed by 41% between June and December. A war would have been disastrous.
Second, it is vital to frame an issue in terms of the prevailing international circumstances and how that can best be used to achieve one’s own objectives. Delhi decided to ally itself with the ‘war on terror’, which was being fought across continents. The result of a war would have been not just finger-wagging from the international community, but also the loss of international money. Investors hate instability.
Pakistan’s fortunes began to tumble soon after 26/11, furthered by an internal mess of its own making. The country, under General Pervez Musharraf, milked 9/11 for all it was worth: the U.S. military’s aid rose exponentially during this period in order to enable Pakistan to fight Taliban and al Qaeda militants. Joe Biden, who was Senator, repeatedly called for reducing this aid in 2008. Real GDP growth crashed after 2008-09 and later recovered briefly, but it never recovered to previous growth rates. Foreign Direct Investment, which had risen in the 9/11 period, dropped by 42% by 2010, as Pakistan became identified with the ‘war on terror’. The focus on Pakistan increased further when the United Nations designated the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) as a terrorist organisation in 2010. In 2009, the U.S. Senate passed the revised version of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which tripled U.S. non-military assistance to Pakistan from $400 million to $1.5 billion annually for the next five years, with clauses that Pakistan considered offensive. For instance, the bill said that Pakistan must show that it is “ceasing support” for terrorists and that it must prevent groups such as LeT from carrying out attacks on “neighbouring countries.” Pakistan was furious. This narrative began to build as notable scholars such as Stephen Cohen began to call it “America’s most dangerous ally”. India was de-linked from Pakistan as it drew closer to the U.S., while Pakistan’s future was evaluated entirely by its terrorist antics.
It can be argued that the collapse of present-day Pakistan is in part due to India’s decision not to attack and instead craft an international response. Alongside, India created a path for a $3 trillion economy, while Pakistan’s economic fortunes continue to tumble. None of this might have happened if India had gone to war.
Showing strength
However, this does not reduce the vital importance of the air strikes on Balakot. Those were carried out when India’s defence capability had vastly improved, its economy was strong, and it enjoyed a solid relationship with the U.S. The strikes were carefully calibrated to send a signal to Pakistan that its terrorism was not cost-free. Importantly, it freed Indians from a defensive mindset. Strong leadership matters. But strength can come from a deliberated move rather than the kind of chest-beating that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted.
Finally, whether then or now, there is no question of having ‘boots on the ground’ given that India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Pakistan can be punished, but without being invaded. Those calling for India to be as “decisive” as Israel miss the point. Mr. Netanyahu has just given Hamas the priceless gift of publicity; now, support for the Palestinian cause has swelled everywhere. The trick is to outwit a country, even as the threat of a slashing sword is seen to be ever-present.
Tara Kartha, formerly with the National Security Council Secretariat, is a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. She posts on X as @kartha_tara
