Before ceasefire came India's Israel-like shift in policy towards Pakistan

India Today

10-05-2025

After three days of escalating tensions, India and Pakistan announced a ceasefire on Saturday, bringing the conflict to an end. The ceasefire, mediated by the US, ended India's 'Operation Sindoor' against Pakistan, but with dire warnings for the future: any misadventure by terrorists and their patrons in the future will be an act of war against India.It also defined the new normal for the jihadis, and an ironic wish-fulfilment for Pakistan.advertisementSince the launch of 'Operation Sindoor,' the whole of Pakistan had been worrying about military strikes on terror infrastructure becoming the "new normal" for India. Well, here is the good news for Pakistan: by collectively thinking about India's terror doctrine, it manifested its destiny, serendipitously deferred by the ceasefire.
Pakistan got what it subconsciously wished for on Saturday morning when India announced that any future act of terrorism targeting Indian interests, will be treated as an Act of War. The decision, made at a high-level security meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is an "Israel-like" shift in its policy. It comes amid an escalating military conflict between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the terror strike in Pahalgam, leading to the killing of 26 people.TERRORISTS AS REVERED GUESTSIndia's policy on terrorism had so far been defined by a mix of caution, dialogue and restrained action. In the past, it had reacted to attacks by terrorists primarily as an internal law and order problem, letting the investigating agencies deal with it.advertisementEven when the attacks pointed to an external hand, primarily Pakistan's, India sought the cooperation of the concerned government, supporting its case with evidence and dossiers. To India's frustration and anger, this quest for justice through diplomacy rarely yielded results. In almost every case, the probe was thwarted—the standard ruse being inconclusive evidence, or complete denial of the role of any organisation or person from across the country. In the rare case when action was taken, the guilty were not handed over to India. On the pretext of trying them in their own court, the concerned government lodged them in high-security facilities with five-star facilities.Two glaring examples of this lack of cooperation and doublespeak are Masood Azhar, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Hafiz Saeed. In spite of their hand in some of the biggest terror strikes in India since 2000, they were provided safe haven in Pakistan, with the fiat to operate with impunity. Even when Saeed, the Lashkar-e-Taiba chief declared an international terrorist, was tried and sentenced, he was hosted by the ISI as a revered guest.Not any more.TERROR AS AN ACT OF WARWith the government deciding to treat terror as an act of war, the long and frustrating road to justice through diplomacy has been shut. India will now retaliate against terror with the full spectrum of force available, including precision strikes on terrorists, their headquarters, patrons and financiers. In short: An 'Operation Sindoor' kind of retaliation will be the new normal.advertisementIndia's decision to not deal with terrorism only as a crime handled by cops and special agencies signals its new resolve. It shows India is keen to tear off the tag of 'soft state'—an impression that was created by its patient and diplomatic approach to deal with terrorists and their backers in the past. It wants to adopt a policy of zero tolerance and retaliate with the firmness and alacrity that's the hallmark of the Israeli and US policy. Both these countries have often struck preemptively to deal with threats. In the aftermath of a terror attack, they have resorted to precision strikes, targeted killings and even a full-scale war–the 2002 attack on Iraq by the US, and the ongoing Israel-Hamas war being prime examples of this approach.THE MESSAGE FOR PAKISTANFor the past five decades, Pakistan has pursued the policy of breeding terrorists in its backyard under the nuclear umbrella. In spite of India's measured approach, and when presented with irrefutable evidence, Pakistan has been intractable, even shamelessly defiant. It has been testing India's resolve with both covert and overt support to terrorism on Indian soil.advertisementIts policy has been defined by the belief that India would operate below the diplomatic threshold in dealing with terrorists inside Pak territory. Islamabad's confidence has been rooted in its doctrine of nuclear-blackmail, a card it has used to deter India.Pakistan should have realised that India is no longer willing to surrender to the nuclear-blackmail when the Narendra Modi government launched strategic strikes across the Line of Control after the attack on an Army camp in Pulwama. It should have been reminded of India's diminishing tolerance when India struck Balakot to avenge the 2019 terror attack in Pulwama.After the precision strikes on terror infrastructure at nine locations, including Muridke and Bahawalpur, Pakistan has realised that this will be the new normal for India. Its journalists and security experts have been wondering how Islamabad would deal with India if every terror attack follows strategic bombing of targets in Pakistan.The answer should be evident to them: Every single life lost in India will be avenged. If Pakistan continues to support terror, it should be ready to be at war with India—a destiny they'd be advised not to manifest.The ceasefire is a reprieve for Pak, a time to rethink its policy, and its future.Tune InTrending Reel