Operation Sindoor: Can War Eradicate Terrorism?

War should have been our last priority. There is also no need to exhibit our military strength against a failed state like Pakistan. India has fought four full-scale wars—the Kashmir War in 1947, the India-Pakistan War in 1965, the Bangladesh War in 1971, and the Kargil War in 1999—and decisively defeated Pakistan

Though there has been no official declaration, India and Pakistan have entered into a war. No one knows how long this will last. However, one thing is evident: it will injure the already damaged social, political, and economic fabric of the subcontinent. The most worrying point in the ongoing battle is the euphoria associated with the war.

The way the Indian media is reacting to the military offensives and counter-offensives is symptomatic of a deep-seated malady. This sickness has found an outlet in it. The discredited media is set to further lose its credibility.

Many may argue that this is not the time to criticise the government. They emphasise that we should not display our differences and must speak with one voice. Ironically, this self-imposed censorship has come from independent intellectuals and opposition parties. They have done so without any precedent.

There are viral videos of Narendra Modi, then Chief Minister of Gujarat, where he attacks the Manmohan Singh government for failing to prevent a terror attack on Mumbai in 2008. He expressed his views most bluntly. The Mumbai terror attack changed the course of the Indo-Pak relationship. India snapped all ties with Pakistan and successfully isolated it in world diplomacy. Did Manmohan Singh adopt this approach on his own? No. Popular opinion played an important role, and opposition parties and independent intellectuals contributed to building it.

No one can deny that popular opinion has played a significant role in prompting the recent military action. There was a wave of sympathy for the victims of the Pahalgam Terror Attack and anger against the purported complicity of the Pakistani establishment. Opposition parties also started clamoring for action. Was it right for political parties to react like laymen? Had they rationally and calmly assessed the incident, they might have suggested something less than military action. They seem to have failed in evaluating the situation.

No one in the world expects us to act on provocations. War should have been our last priority. There is also no need to exhibit our military strength against a failed state like Pakistan. India has fought four full-scale wars—the Kashmir War in 1947, the India-Pakistan War in 1965, the Bangladesh War in 1971, and the Kargil War in 1999—and decisively defeated Pakistan. There were enough triggers for all these wars, and India was forced to enter them.

This time, it would have been pragmatic for India to have taken more time to contemplate military action. After all, we have experience with military strikes on terror camps. Could we achieve anything tangible from the Balakot Surgical Strike? At best, it softened public feelings and boosted their morale. If we look at cross-border terrorism, there has been no significant reduction in it. It should also be noted that the strike derailed the political discourse in the country. Indians were engrossed in an unnecessary debate about whether the strike was successful or not.

The BJP made it a political issue. With the help of the media, the Balakot strike was portrayed as an exercise that India had never accomplished before. A small operation was made out to be a historic achievement. The BJP apparently took electoral advantage of it in 2019. Would it not have been better for India to reconsider repeating a Balakot-like strike, given the experience of the Balakot Strike?

There are other issues as well. The politics of the last decade have significantly changed the discourse in the country. It would be ignoring reality to deny that the Hindutva ideology has been strongly asserted during the entire decade of Modi's rule. There has been growing tension between Hindus and Muslims.

Every single religious event requires sensible handling and has the potential to trigger violence. There have been people on both sides who thrive on communal tension and put all their efforts into flaring it up. We saw this during the Pahalgam Attack as well. There were attempts to drive a wedge between the two communities. However, the bond between Hindu tourists and Kashmiris foiled the attempts by communalists.

The military exercise at terror camps in Pakistan must also be seen in this context. The support extended by the opposition and the intelligentsia to the military action has been complete. Muslim social and political organisations have also been conspicuous in their presence. Many may portray this as a great thing.

However, a closer look reveals that this unity has always existed. We have seen it consistently, from the Kashmir War in 1947 to the Kargil War in 1999. Communalists in India always try to question the loyalty of Muslims. This has been a main plank of right-wing politics in the country.

While discussing the war, we must consider the nexus of the arms industry, corporate, and political organisations. When tackling the menace of terrorism, we need to examine the efficacy of military solutions to the problem.

Noted human rights activist Noam Chomsky strongly criticizes military actions in the name of the War on Terror. He argues that they have increased terrorism and instability. According to him, military solutions are counterproductive and aggravate the problem. He contends that military actions have failed to address the underlying social, political, and economic factors that contribute to terrorism. Chomsky highlights the devastating consequences of military solutions, including the loss of human lives, displacement, and the creation of new conflicts and instability. He advocates a comprehensive approach to address terrorism through diplomacy, de-escalation, and a commitment to human rights and international law.

Are we ready to think this way? Are we ready to return to our civilisational roots of non-violence and dialogue? This is the foundational ideology of India as a nation. Mahatma Gandhi is our guiding force. The language we have adopted in recent years is inconsistent with our ideological foundation. We must rethink our strategy. War is not the solution.

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)