C Pradeep Kumar
Late Wednesday night, in a precise and targeted military operation, Indian forces struck nine terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-occupied territories. This was not an act of provocation, but one of preemptive self-defence — a justified and necessary response to the persistent threat of cross-border terrorism. According to official sources, the strikes hit only nine of 21 identified terror bases, including facilities linked to the two most notorious Pakistan-based jihadist groups — Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Rough estimates suggest about 100 terrorists may have been neutralized in this operation. While this is no small feat, it must also be seen in context: these 100 comprise less than 1% of the total estimated cadre of jihadists operating under Pakistani patronage. That staggering statistic lays bare the deeper question that many Indians are now asking: if we had actionable intelligence on 21 terror camps, why strike only nine?
Why Strike Halfway?
To the average Indian — whether a grieving family of a soldier lost in Pulwama or a farmer living near the Line of Control — the logic is simple: when you know where the enemy hides, why spare him? Why allow a known cancer to fester when you have the scalpel in hand? Why risk Indian lives tomorrow for a threat that we deliberately chose not to eliminate today?
This isn’t bloodlust. It’s national self-preservation. And the restraint, while diplomatically understandable, must not morph into a strategy of semi-measured reactions. Incomplete actions lead to incomplete deterrence. History, unfortunately, has shown us this repeatedly.
Surgical Strikes: Strategy, Not Symbolism
Surgical strikes, by definition, are limited and precise, designed to hit military targets with minimal collateral damage. But in the Indian context, they have too often become rituals of restrained retaliation, staged more for political and psychological effect than for decisive security gains.
Each time India strikes surgically and then halts, the signal to Islamabad and its terror proxies is: “We’ll hit back, but not hard enough to end you.” Such messaging emboldens terror outfits to regroup, re-arm, and return with deadlier intent. The result is a cycle of provocation, limited response, and continued threat. Deterrence, meanwhile, is eroded.
True deterrence is not built on mercy. It is built on certainty — the certainty of punishment, the assurance that harbouring or funding terror will invite relentless retribution until the threat is extinguished, not paused.
The Cost of Incompletion
Sparing known terror camps during a premeditated strike carries grave consequences:
- It communicates hesitation, suggesting political caution outweighs military necessity.
- It leaves high-value operatives alive, enabling them to plan future attacks.
- It diminishes the moral and tactical value of the original strike.
- It allows Pakistan to exploit the half-measure, using selective outrage to influence global opinion.
An incomplete operation, however “measured,” does not align with the doctrine of preemptive self-defence. Nor does it serve the spirit of national security that the Indian public demands and deserves.
The Legal and Moral Case: India Is on Solid Ground
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, every sovereign nation has the inalienable right to defend itself from armed attacks. When terrorists find shelter and support in a neighbouring country, and that nation either fails or refuses to act, international law permits the victim state to:
- Conduct cross-border operations targeting terror infrastructure.
- Use proportional force to neutralize ongoing or imminent threats.
- Protect its civilians and territorial integrity with all necessary means.
Crucially, India’s strikes have respected the norms of humanitarian law. There has been no targeting of civilian infrastructure, no attacks on population centres, and no violation of international legal boundaries. The focus has remained singular: eliminate the instruments of terror.
Escalation Fears: Caution or Cowardice?
Some argue that striking all 21 camps would risk war, invite global criticism, or provoke full-scale retaliation from Pakistan. But that logic rests on an outdated assumption: that India must always calibrate its response to avoid “escalation,” even at the cost of enduring future attacks.
This approach has repeatedly failed. Every time India exercised restraint — post-Kargil, post-26/11, post-Pulwama — Pakistan interpreted it not as maturity, but as weakness. Deterrence does not lie in delaying action; it lies in ensuring that aggression comes with a price too steep to bear.
Nations like Israel have demonstrated how targeted, unflinching responses to terror threats can not only neutralize enemies but also win diplomatic respect. When the mission is clear, the law is followed, and the cause is just, international opinion does not turn away — it often aligns.
India’s Geopolitical Capital Must Be Used
India today is not a reactive state. It is a rising power with growing clout in international forums, strategic partnerships with major democracies, and an armed force capable of precision and perseverance. This capital must be spent wisely — and boldly — in defence of its citizens.
New Delhi can:
- Publicly assert that its actions are limited to counter-terror operations.
- Share post-strike intelligence with friendly nations and UN bodies.
- Mobilize diplomatic networks to preempt Pakistan’s propaganda.
- Frame the narrative: not one of escalation, but of ethical enforcement of peace.
The time for apologetic diplomacy is over. The world today is grappling with the realities of asymmetric warfare, grey-zone threats, and state-sponsored non-state actors. India is not alone in this fight, but it must lead by example.
The Nation Is Watching — and Waiting
From border villages scarred by shelling to metropolitan cities targeted by bombings, Indians have borne the cost of unpunished terror. Their patience is not infinite. They do not seek vengeance, but they demand justice. A full, unwavering pursuit of national security is not extremism — it is governance with spine.
The Indian military has the capability. The Prime Minister has the mandate. The public has the will. What is needed now is resolve, not partial, not cautious, but complete.
A Message to the Prime Minister and Defence Authorities
You have struck. You have shown intent. Now show finality. If you’ve mapped 21 terror hubs, neutralize them all. If your mission is to defend India, then finish what you started.
Let history remember this moment not as a limited military reply, but as the beginning of the end for Pakistan’s proxy war. Let this be the day terrorism began to die — not the day India blinked after a single punch.
