Day 22 – Q 5.The surgical strikes in Uri and the operation by the Indian Airforce in Balakot signify a marked departure from India’s past responses to terrorism and associated activities. Do you agree? Substantiate.

5. The surgical strikes in Uri and the operation by the Indian Airforce in Balakot signify a marked departure from India’s past responses to terrorism and associated activities. Do you agree? Substantiate.  

उड़ी में सर्जिकल स्ट्राइक और बालाकोट में इंडियन एयरफोर्स द्वारा किया गया ऑपरेशन आतंकवाद और उससे जुड़ी गतिविधियों के लिए भारत की पिछली प्रतिक्रियाओं से एक अलग प्रस्थान का संकेत देता है। क्या आप सहमत हैं? पुष्टी करें।

Introduction:

In the words of IAF chief “The strategic relevance of the Balakot air strikes is the resolve of the political leadership to punish the perpetrators of terrorism. There is a major shift in the government’s way of handling terrorist attacks. “

Body

India’s past responses to terrorism:

India since independence vouch for peace and has not taken unilateral offensive steps. It relied on

• Public condemnation with a passive response relying on bilateral talks and investigation. E.g. joint investigations after 26/11 attack.
• Institutional reforms overhauling the counter terrorism structure. E.g. creation of NIA after Mumbai attack.
• Responses to the attacks were within the borders which included arrest/killing of terrorists. E.g. Afzal guru after parliament attack, Kasab after Mumbai attack etc.,
• Focus more on peace time border management than on preparation for retaliation. 

India’s response marking a change:

Along with the above steps, there is a change in intensity and form of response like

• Retaliation: Use of limited force to give a befitting reply as well as ensuring the non-escalation of the conflict. E.g. Balakot air strikes.
• Limited emphasis on bilateral talks. The view that” talks and terrorism cannot go together”. Also, other areas like trade linked to the terrorism issue. E.g. India closed down its border for several imports from Pakistan.
• Joint operations with neighboring countries using force to eliminate insurgency incidents. E.g. Operation sunrise with Myanmar.
• Countering the act with stand on similar issues in the other country. E.g. The prime minister talk on issues in Balochistan during Independence Day.
• The areas hitherto untouched taken up and made part of counter terror talks. E.g. Statements on Indus water treaty where the PM said “blood and water cannot flow together”.
• A shift from politically dealing the terrorism issue to militarily – similar to USA but on a small scale. E.g. free hand given to the army chief to take steps to curb terrorism after Pulwama attack.
• Taking unprecedented stands on settled propositions like ‘No first use policy’ for the sake of National Unity and security.
• Mainstreaming terrorism issue in every bilateral talks and multilateral forum and also coming up with strategies to handle the issue. Previously, the discussion on terrorism attacks were mainly limited in bilateral talks. E.g. Counter terrorist exercise in SCO (RATS) etc.,

Conclusion

Thus, the way in which India handle the terrorism issue has changed from passive defensive pressure relying on talks to active offensive immediate response to create a deterrent effect. Both ways have its own positives and collaborative effort of talks with deterrent response is needed. In the words of PM, ‘the responses were to teach terrorists a lesson in the language they understand’.