The Pahalgam Attack : Sentimental Revenge And War Should not be the first choice.
The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which claimed the lives of innocent civilians and brave security personnel, has reignited widespread public anger and demand retaliation. The grief is deep, and the desire to avenge the dead is obvious. Yet, for a nation of India’s eminence — the world’s most populous democracy and a global economic power — decisions of war and peace must not be guided by emotion but by long-term national interest.
Calls for military strikes against Pakistan, believed to be nurturing terror outfits responsible for such attacks, are not new. India has signified its capability through surgical strikes and the Balakot airstrikes. However, past experience has shown that while such actions carry symbolic weight, they rarely demolish the deep-rooted terror infrastructure across the border. Retaliation may satisfy domestic sentiment but can risk regional escalation — a dangerous proposition between two nuclear-armed neighbours.
India must consider the broader cost. With an economy on the rise and exports exceeding $775 billion annually, India’s integration into the global supply chain is accelerating. Any conflict — even a limited one — could disrupt trade flows, deter foreign investment, and unsettle markets. A prolonged military engagement may also result in significant loss of lives, financial strain, and diplomatic backlash.
Instead, India should pursue a layered response. Intelligence-led counter-terrorism operations, economic sanctions on terror-linked entities, and intensified global diplomatic pressure on Pakistan are more sustainable and effective. India must continue leveraging international forums like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the United Nations to expose and isolate Pakistan’s terror nexus. Simultaneously, strengthening internal security mechanisms and fostering inclusive development in Jammu and Kashmir remain critical to long-term peace.
India's global credibility lies in its ability to act as a responsible power — one that upholds international law, protects its citizens, and promotes stability. Reacting with restraint is not a sign of weakness but of wisdom. The real tribute to those lost in Pahalgam lies not in reactionary violence, but in a strategic, unrelenting pursuit of justice. Emotion must not dictate national policy. India’s strength lies in its ability to combine resolve with restraint. In the face of terror, the response must be firm — but also farsighted.
0 Comments