In a number of his election speeches, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has emphasised that India now eliminates terrorists in their homes.
Speaking in Gujarat's Surendranagar on 2 May, Modi said that earlier neighbours regularly undertook bomb explosions (in India) which killed people. Now those who send terrorists know that India comes into the homes of terrorists to finish them off. Two days before these comments, Modi addressed an election rally in the Latur district of Maharashtra.
A media report quoted him as saying, “During the Congress regime, news headlines used to be about India handing over another dossier to Pakistan about terror activities and terrorists…Today, India does not dispatch dossiers but we eliminate terrorists on their home turf. The headlines in the 'New Bharat’ read Mission LOC, India punishes Pakistan through surgical strikes.’’
The Opposition parties have not responded to these assertions of Modi on terrorism. Nor, have they made any comment on the controversial reports in the Western media regarding Indian intelligence agencies.
BJP Manifesto’s ‘Zero Tolerance Policy’ Against Terrorism
As one knowledgeable and insightful observer of the current Indian political scene said to me that the Opposition’s lack of response is deliberate because it does not wish to get diverted from its agenda of highlighting people’s economic difficulties. But this is politics and as a former diplomat, I am far removed from it.
My interest is in the evolution of Modi’s policy on Pakistani terrorism against India over the past decade.
Before proceeding further, a look at the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) manifesto on its tough posture on terrorism would be useful. It asserts at one place that there have been “Zero major terror attacks in any city since 2014”. However, later while assuring that it will continue a "zero-tolerance policy" against terrorism it states, “The Surgical Strikes of 2016 and the Air Strikes of 2019 are examples of our dedicated efforts towards countering terrorism. We are committed to defending Bharat’s citizens at home and abroad from all threats of terrorism”.
The party manifesto also shows that it is conscious of the need to build an international consensus against terrorism. It mentions, as a foreign policy objective, “We will continue our efforts to create a consensus among all members of the United Nations on the Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism (CCIT) and other such efforts to combat terrorism. We will build on the success of the 'No Money for Terror’ conference to develop better coordination on countering terrorism financing."
The CCIT was introduced by India in 1996 in the United Nations. It has really made no headway, including in the past decade, inter alia, because the international community has not been able to evolve a definition of terrorism. The international community has, therefore, focused, instead on reaching agreements on how to deal with terrorist acts, such as hijacking, or staunching terrorist financing.
The quest for evolving a consensus on a definition of terrorism is really still a distant quest.
How Modi’s Pakistan Pitch Evolved
To revert to Modi’s approach towards Pakistani terrorism against India. It is true that the '2019 Air Strikes’ – to use the BJP manifesto’s formulation were significant in the evolution of Indian policy to counter Pakistani terrorism.
The statement issued by the then Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale after the strikes spelt out a doctrine of 'pre-emption’. Gokhale said, "…In the face of imminent danger a preemptive strike became absolutely necessary." He went on to add, “The Government of India is firmly and resolutely committed to taking all necessary measures to fight the menace of terrorism."
Through these formulations, Modi signalled his determination to take kinetic action outside its territory if a terrorist attack was being planned.
There has been no Pulwama-like terrorist attack since 2019. The global powers obviously warned Pakistan that as a state with nuclear weapons, it could no longer take Indian patience and non-kinetic approach for granted.
Thus, the 2019 air strikes were the most important step in the evolution of India’s approach to Pakistani terrorism.
Till now, it has had a salutary effect. However, till Pulwama and certainly till the "Surgical Strikes” in the aftermath of the 2016 Uri terrorist attack, Modi too followed a policy of non-kinetic responses to Pakistani terrorist attacks. This is evidenced by the Indian response to the Pathankot airbase terrorist attack of January 2016.
Why India-Pakistan Failed To Patch Up?
It will be recalled that Modi’s instinct was to normalise relations with Pakistan. That is why he invited PM Nawaz Sharif to his oath-taking ceremony in Delhi in May 2014.
Sharif came despite the objection of the Pakistani Army. A year later the two prime ministers met on the sidelines of the SCO summit in Ufa, Russia and signed a joint statement in which they agreed that their NSAs would meet to discuss terrorism.
There was no mention of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in the joint statement. The Pakistani generals found that unacceptable and ensured that Nawaz Sharif could not move ahead on the commitment he had made at Ufa.
Modi showed flexibility and the NSAs accompanied by the foreign secretaries met in Bangkok in December 2015 to discuss a range of bilateral issues including terrorism. Two days after this meeting, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj visited Pakistan for a multilateral meeting but on its sidelines met with her Pakistani counterpart. They agreed to resume the full bilateral dialogue. A fortnight after this, Modi stopped by in Lahore on his way from Kabul to Delhi to meet Nawaz Sharif.
Modi’s visit upset the Pakistani Army which responded by promoting the Pathankot airbase terrorist attack. Modi did not break relations but allowed a Pakistani team to visit India, including the Pathankot airbase. It included an officer of the ISI.
From 2016 till the Uri terrorist attack, despite the vitriol that Pakistan spread against India, Modi showed exemplary patience. He changed after the Uri attack. Thus, there was an evolution in his approach.
Lastly, even after the air strikes of 2019, India gave a dossier to Pakistan. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson, in response to a question, stated, "India is disappointed at Pakistan’s response to our detailed dossier on the Jaish-e-Mohammed’s complicity on the cross-border terror attack in Pulwama, the presence of its terror camps and leadership in Pakistan."
It can be justifiably argued though that giving dossiers after a kinetic strike is fundamentally different from just handing them one.
(The writer is a former Secretary [West], Ministry of External Affairs. He can be reached @VivekKatju. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)