Indian leadership’s posturing suggests that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will counter the Pakistan army-orchestrated gruesome terrorist strike at Pahalgam on April 22 with a carefully calibrated military strike aimed at imposing costs on the Pakistan army.
As in the past, Pakistani officials are projecting a possible limited Indian military riposte as a planned declaration of war. India, of course, has no intention of going to war.
Pakistan’s projection of the retaliatory strike as a declaration of war is actually an escalatory nuclear threat to India. The false projection is not aimed at dissuading Indian political leaders, but at alarming world leaders.
One thing that the war in Ukraine has revealed is that world leaders are dismally ill-informed, not just about security threats faced by other nations, but often, even the security threats faced by their own nation.
Retaliatory Strikes Are A Norm
Retaliatory military strikes are now a de facto norm – The US / NATO / Israel and Iran routinely launch retaliatory strikes on other nations, as do the Houthis.
The strikes are not aimed at starting a war. It’s up to the nation targeted to decide how it should respond to a military strike.
The inflammatory utterances of Pakistan’s ministers are not a reflection of reality. Ministers in Pakistan are puppets, as are almost all other senior government officials. Pakistan’s Army calls the shots in the country. Western military analysts have a proclivity to forget that.
Pakistani Generals, through their intelligence networks, know very well that India is contemplating a retaliatory strike, not going to war. In case the war does break out between Pakistan and India, Pakistan Army Generals will lose it all – their hold on power, their wealth, and some, even their lives.
Statements by Pakistan’s ministers are not a reflection of reality. The statements are largely made at the behest of the Pakistan Army, which is why they sound like parroted narratives.
Painting India’s Modi As A Hot Head
The statements, which invariably trumpet that India’s Modi has no proof of Pakistan’s complicity in the Pahalgam terror strike, are aimed at spreading alarm in the world so that diplomatic pressure in India allows Pakistan to escape the consequences of its wretched and continued use of terrorism as a geopolitical tool.
The statement aims to project Modi as a hot head who is driven by hostility towards Muslims and Pakistan in particular, who has shared no evidence pointing to Pakistan’s complicity.
First and foremost, Modi’s record in Indian politics is not germane to the Phalgam strike.
The Pahalgam strike was an attack on India. As the Prime Minister, Modi has no choice but to defend India’s sovereignty and prevent such attacks in the future.
Over the past 2 to 3 decades, through the continued use of terror, Pakistan has forced India to climb the escalation ladder step by step. After more than a dozen Pahalgam-like terror strikes in this century, India now responds to the provocations with military repostes (Uri, September 2016; Pulwama, February 2019). If anything, the Pahalgam attack forces India to climb up the escalator ladder, not climb down!
Besides, Modi has proof of Pakistan’s involvement. The only possible fact check to the claim is that every Indian believes they have proof. As to the facetious demand for sharing the proof, no government has ever released details of the intelligence that points to the perpetrator of a cross-border crime.
Finally, there is open-source evidence – circumstantial yet compelling – that points squarely at the Pakistani military for the brazen act of provocation against India.
Measured Response
Prime Minister Modi, armed with what he deems irrefutable evidence, is signaling that a measured military response is not only inevitable but also necessary.
This is not a moment for timid retaliation. It is, instead, a defining juncture where India must reassert its sovereignty, honor, and long-term strategic interests.
The directive is clear: while India has no appetite for indiscriminate warfare, a precisely calibrated military strike is required. It must be more potent and symbolic than previous responses, sending an unmistakable message to the adversary.
One way to make India’s response more persuasive would be to inflict lasting pain, rather than simply highlighting India’s military superiority.
India must act in a manner that unequivocally conveys to Pakistan’s military establishment that any future use of terror will bring it more shame and humiliation in the eyes of the people of Pakistan. The military’s grip on the power structure in Pakistan will inevitably slacken.
The military action must conform to the spirit of the punitive action already taken – suspension of the Indus Water Treaty. The suspension will cause enduring economic pain and social challenges, setting in motion a chain of consequences that could reverberate throughout the region for decades to come.
Seizing The Opportunity To Redefine Boundaries
A critical element of this response should be the reclamation of territory that was forcefully wrested from India through the 1947 war immediately following partition. The territory has long been regarded as an integral part of India’s cultural and historical landscape.
Seizing territory that India was forcibly dispossessed of would be easily defensible in international forums, particularly since Pakistan has suspended the Simla agreement. India could project the repossessed territory as being essential to prevent infiltration from Pakistan.
The direct gain from such limited military action would not be much for the Indian Army, but the consequent humiliation of Pakistan’s army would be significant and enduring.
Redefining the LoC, if executed with strategic precision, would serve as a dual-purpose deterrent.
First, it would impose a lasting humiliation on the Pakistani military establishment, undermining its credibility as a regional power. Second, it would signal to the international community that India remains uncompromising in its territorial integrity and will not concede any ground in the face of external provocations.
Conclusion: Setting The Stage For A New Era
India’s political, military, and bureaucratic leaderships have no appetite for reckless military escalation. However, the time has come for India to project strength and decisiveness, ensuring that future transgressions are met with a response that is both swift and unyielding.
The message is clear: India’s patience has its limits, and the consequences for undermining its sovereignty will be severe and long-lasting.
Modi is not pursuing a full-scale war, but he is likely overseeing the implementation of a measured and deliberate response by the Indian military leadership aimed at restoring India’s long-due honor.
- Vijainder K Thakur is a retired IAF Jaguar pilot, author, software architect, entrepreneur, and military analyst.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR
- Follow the author @vkthakur
