Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
In Sacred Indian Texts of Ramayan and Mahabharat, Lakshman Rekha and Shishupala Vadh represent two contrasting yet complementary principles for confronting transgression. The former, drawn in the Ramayana, is a boundary of caution — meant to shield, not provoke. The latter, from the Mahabharata, embodies the threshold of tolerance — after which swift and righteous punishment becomes inevitable. For decades, India’s strategic posture mirrored the former. But the events following the April 22 terrorist attack on Indian civilians signal a historic departure — India has embraced the doctrine of decisive justice, long overdue.
From Restraint to Retaliation
India’s approach to cross-border terrorism, particularly emanating from Pakistan, has long been defined by measured restraint. During the 1999 Kargil War, even under extreme provocation, India chose not to cross the Line of Control — a modern-day Lakshman Rekha, respecting international norms and limiting escalation.
This pattern of restraint continued through some of the most horrific acts of terror in India’s history. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks were a chilling example of Pakistan-backed terrorism striking at the heart of India’s financial capital. A plan to bomb Muridke, the Lashkar-e-Taiba headquarters in Pakistan, was reportedly presented by the then Air Force Chief. However, the UPA government at the time lacked the political will to act decisively. Instead, India sent dossiers expecting Pakistan to take action — a hope that predictably yielded nothing.
Even under the BJP-led government, after the Pathankot airbase attack in 2016, India allowed a Pakistani investigation team to visit the site for a so-called joint probe — a move widely criticized as naive. As expected, it resulted in zero progress. These episodes reflected a timid response doctrine — one where moral posturing took precedence over strategic assertion.
But things changed after Uri. — most notably through the 2016 surgical strikes after the Uri attack, and the Balakot airstrikes in 2019 post-Pulwama. These actions were bold departures from past inaction. However, their limited scale and selective targeting of terrorists, who are often treated as dispensable assets by the Pakistani military, rendered them tactically significant but strategically insufficient.
April 22: A Line Crossed
The brutal April 22 attack changed the rules of engagement. This time, India did not just go after the pawns. It targeted the generals. The precision military operations launched in response inflicted significant damage on Pakistani army infrastructure, including installations known to facilitate terrorist activities. The strikes were calibrated, contained, but conclusive — sending a clear message: India will no longer tolerate proxy war under nuclear cover.
Importantly, India exercised strategic restraint even while exercising force. By accepting a pause in military operations, New Delhi demonstrated maturity. But by laying down new rules — that any future act of terror will be treated as an act of war — India made its threshold and intent unambiguously clear.
The Modi Doctrine: From Symbolism to Substance
This shift is not tactical; it is doctrinal. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s foreign and security policy has undergone a paradigm shift. The days of token responses and moral posturing are over. What has emerged is a policy of consequence, where India asserts itself as a sovereign power willing to act decisively.
Modi has redefined the idea of strategic patience. Patience is no longer passive — it is measured. When crossed, it gives way to forceful assertion. The current response signals that India is no longer a soft power that absorbs pain without reprisal. It is a state that combines moral clarity with military capability, and restraint with retaliation.
Beyond Borders: A Message to the World
This evolution also carries a message beyond South Asia. In an era where hybrid warfare, proxy terrorism, and state-sponsored non-state actors are challenging conventional boundaries, India’s new doctrine resonates globally. Democracies must not only defend, but deter. They must draw their red lines and act when crossed.
Addressing Criticism: The South Asian Israel Argument
Some left-wing commentators argue that this approach risks turning India into a “South Asian Israel” — an aggressive regional power defined by perpetual conflict. But the analogy is flawed. Unlike Israel, India faces an adversary much larger in size and dangerously equipped with nuclear weapons. Therefore, India’s response cannot be unidimensional.
To effectively contain Pakistan, India is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy:
- Water as Leverage: India has clearly stated that the Indus Waters Treaty will remain in abeyance, using water as a tool to pressure behavioural change.
- Financial Containment: New Delhi is pushing for Pakistan’s inclusion in the FATF grey list to restrict its financial flows and international credibility.
- Strategic Realignment: India is deepening engagement with China while balancing relations with the United States, ensuring geopolitical room to maneuver.
- Defense Modernization and economic development: India must continue to invest heavily in indigenous, state-of-the-art defence technology, which will provide a clear competitive edge in future conflicts and reinforce long-term strategic deterrence. In parallel, India must keep a sharp focus on economic development — especially in contrast to Pakistan’s dependence on IMF bailouts, while India’s foreign exchange reserves exceeding $800 billion offer unmatched leverage. This fiscal strength allows India to scale both indigenous defence R&D and high-end procurements from global partners.. Accelerating defence production and procurement must therefore be a national imperative.
Ultimately, this multi-pronged strategy is not just about winning wars or deterring aggression — it is about safeguarding a civilizational ethos. Just as India’s culture has always been rooted in balance between strength and wisdom, its geopolitical approach today must reflect the same. The pursuit of technological edge, economic might, and diplomatic agility reflects not an arms race, but a dharmic commitment to peace through preparedness, strength, and sovereignty.
India has now made it clear — acts of terror will not be tolerated, and their enablers will not be spared. The world has watched. The message has been sent.
In modern geopolitics, tolerance has limits, and deterrence must have teeth. India has now shown it possesses both — wisdom to wait, and will to act.
As the ancient Sanskrit maxim reminds us: “धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः” — Dharma protects those who protect it. India’s actions are not merely strategic; they are civilizational. In upholding dharma, India ensures its own protection and reaffirms its role as a responsible and resolute power.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.