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.
