India Resets its Agenda on Pakistan

The barbaric massacre of 26 innocent Indian tourists at Pahalgam on April 22 by terrorists reminds us of a haunting conversation between Ivan Karamazov and his brother, Alyosha, in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov. Reflecting on the atrocities committed by humans during wartime, specifically the brutal acts carried out by the Turks in Bulgaria, Ivan observes: “People speak sometimes about the ‘animal’ cruelty of man, but that’s terribly unjust and offensive to beasts, no animal could ever be so cruel as a man, so artfully, so artistically cruel”.

Here, Dostoevsky, challenging the notion that human cruelty is merely “bestial”, suggests that ours is indeed a distinct form—nay, humanly-capable of a calculated, almost ritualistic form of wickedness. After all, it is only humans who would enquire about the religion of a man before deciding whether to kill, and even take delight in killing the selected man before his wife’s/kith and kin’s eyes. 

In response to these dastardly acts of terrorists, India imposed economic and trade sanctions against Pakistan, signalling its firm stance against terrorism. Over it, the Indus Waters Treaty was kept in abeyance to further emphasize India’s resolve in addressing cross-border terrorism.    

Prime Minister Narendra Modi underscored the government’s determination, stating in a public meeting, “India will identify, track, and punish every terrorist and their backers. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth …” On the night of May 6-7, India conducted precise air strikes against nine terrorist camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, including the Jaish-e-Mohammed stronghold of Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba’s base in Muridke, which are linked to the orchestration and planning of cross-border terror attacks. The operations, executed within a 23-minute window, were carried out without violating Pakistani airspace and reportedly inflicted significant damage on the targeted camps. 

Not to escalate the conflict further, the Director General of Military Operations, Lt General Rajiv Ghai, made a call to his counterpart in Pakistan and informed that the Indian armed forces carried out ‘focused’, ‘measured’ and ‘non-escalatory’ strikes on nine terror sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and that no Pakistani military establishment had been targeted. Further, any attack on India would invite a befitting response.  

However, Pakistan, as anticipated, retaliated with a barrage of drone and missile strikes. These were, however, successfully intercepted by India’s air defense network, minimizing damage. As the drone and missile strikes continued unabated from Pakistan, on the intervening night of May 9 and 10, India launched precision strikes on Pakistan’s air force infrastructure, including 11 airfields—Nur Khan, Rafiqui, Murid, Sukkur, Sialkot, Pasrur, Chunian, Sargodha, Skardu, Bholari and Jacobabad— air defense units, and control networks. This devastating blow resulted in Pakistan calling for a ceasefire. Having achieved all its goals of Operation Sindoor, India, wisely acceded to the call for a truce. 

A prolonged military campaign with Pakistan is certainly not in the interest of India for reasons galore: It adversely impacts India’s ambition to become a developed economy by 2047. Secondly, assuming a net revenue growth of about 11% and an expenditure growth of about 7%, the budget for 2025-26 projected a fiscal deficit of 4.4% of GDP. But a prolonged border conflict and the resulting rise in defense expenditure is likely to lead to unanticipated growth in budgeted expenditure. This, in turn, would have serious implications for the government’s fiscal consolidation road map. Thirdly, a sustained Indo-Pak conflict could even dent GDP to a significant extent. Indeed, one estimate puts this slide at 1.5 -3% of India’s GDP. So, India has more to lose, while Pakistan, a ‘basket case’, has little to lose. 

Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Modi set a new norm for tackling cross-border terrorism: Any future act of terror would be viewed as an act of war and would invite an appropriate military response against both the terrorist camps and also against their sponsors—the Pakistani military and government. Secondly, India will no longer tolerate Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail. Thirdly, the Indus Waters Treaty would be held in abeyance till India is convinced that Pakistan has stopped sponsoring terrorists. He thus said goodbye to India’s hitherto practiced soft approach. 

Nevertheless, going by the past, there is no guarantee that terrorist attacks from Pakistan will cease to occur in the future. This necessitates enhancing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to pre-emptively neutralize such terror attempts. Over it, India must develop the ability to routinely dismantle terror infrastructure in Pakistan without relying on large-scale deployment of forces along the border. Lastly, India, as a nation united, must assert its own resolve to fight terrorism, for external support will inevitably wax and wane depending on shifting geopolitical dynamics.