India’s response to terrorism over the past two decades has seen a significant policy shift, two contrasting approaches – one with a defensive mindset, tuning down the urge of retaliation, and taking a diplomatic route, while the other accustomed with a deep-rooted sense of nationalism, proactively launching a lethal, no holds barred attack against Pakistan on all – economic, diplomatic, political, and tactical – fronts. Let’s delve deeper into the mindset of these regimes (UPA & NDA) using the case study of the infamous 26/11 Mumbai attack of 2008, and the recent barbaric Pahalgam tragedy.

The 26/11 attack on the economic capital of India, on 26 November 2008, was unarguably fiercer, deadlier, and more threatening than any in recent memory. Mumbai was under siege. Ten radicals from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba infiltrated the city, spread across key locations, and executed what was perhaps the scariest domestic onslaught in recent times—bombing around 12 sites, taking innocent civilians hostage, and unleashing chaos for several days. Over 160 people lost their lives.

The intelligence agencies had seen it coming. Repeated bomb blasts in Mumbai were enough to indicate that sleeper cells and overground workers were well established and prepared for a major strike. The mere fact that terrorists had entered Mumbai was enough to terrorise the masses—this global disease of radical terrorism was no longer confined to Jammu & Kashmir; it had spread across the country.

One of the terrorists, Kasab, was caught alive. He confessed that Pakistan was behind it all. India had the testimony of the perpetrator himself. The world watched, Pakistan trembled, people were enraged—but the blood of the UPA regime did not boil. Instead, they took the road less travelled, attempting solely to isolate Pakistan diplomatically. Bharat had a well-trained armed force, fully prepared to counter the inhumane acts of the Pakistani army—but little did the soldiers know, the government had no interest in retaliation. The then Prime Minister was more inclined towards ‘peace’ and ‘brotherhood’. Innocent civilians were gunned down mercilessly, hostages were tortured at gunpoint, and the nation mourned—yet nothing happened.

If such a barbaric attack didn’t provoke that government, people knew nothing else would. This wasn’t a case of a lack of options. In fact, former Air Chief Marshal Fali Major, in a statement years later, disclosed: “The Indian Air Force had presented all possible military response plans to the UPA government post 26/11, but the leadership refrained from action."

The UPA’s handling of terrorism, particularly post-26/11, reflected a pattern of symbolic outrage rather than substantive response. Dossiers were exchanged, diplomatic notes were issued, and international forums were addressed – but none of these steps inflicted real cost on Pakistan.

Despite clear evidence........

© News18