The Imperative for Decisive Military Action
Col. Dev Anand Lohamaror (Retd.)
On April 22, 2025, the serene hills of Pahalgam in Jammu & Kashmir were scarred by a brutal terrorist attack, claiming innocent lives and reigniting a nation’s fury. In a rare and resolute address, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that the response to the perpetrators and their enablers would be “left entirely to the Defence Services to execute.” This unprecedented delegation of authority signals a seismic shift in Bharat’s security doctrine—from restraint to resolve. With persistent threats escalating, a carefully calibrated military operation is no longer a choice but a strategic necessity to safeguard sovereignty, restore peace, and uphold justice.
A Bold Doctrine of Delegation:
PM Modi’s statement marks a departure from tradition. Bharat has a history of measured military responses, such as the 2016 surgical strikes post-Uri and the 2019 Balakot airstrikes after Pulwama, both tightly overseen by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). While the armed forces executed these operations with precision, strategic decisions remained under civilian control. Now, entrusting the military with operational autonomy reflects both confidence in their capabilities and the urgency to decisively punish those orchestrating terror.
This shift echoes the public’s growing impatience with recurring attacks. From the 2001 Parliament assault to the 2008 Mumbai siege, and more recent strikes in Uri and Pulwama, Pakistan-sponsored terrorism has repeatedly tested Bharat’s resolve. The Pahalgam attack, with its chilling brutality, has pushed the nation past its tipping point.
The War Room: Balancing Autonomy and Strategy:
Bharat’s military operations are guided by a robust framework. The Ministry of Defence, under CCS oversight, provides political directives, while operational autonomy is granted for tactical missions. The 1999 Kargil War saw the CCS closely steering strategy, while the 2016 and 2019 strikes were framed as preemptive self-defense, executed with politico-civilian sanction. PM Modi’s latest pronouncement, however, signals a mandate for swift, decisive action, empowering the military to choose the time and method of retaliation.
This trust is not without precedent. In 2016, the Army’s surgical strikes targeted terror launchpads across the Line of Control (LoC), dismantling infrastructure and restoring deterrence. In 2019, the Indian Air Force’s Balakot strike penetrated deep into Pakistani territory, hitting Jaish-e-Mohammed camps. Both operations, while politically sanctioned, showcased the military’s precision and resolve—qualities now being called upon again.
A Rising Tide of Threats:
The Pahalgam attack is not an isolated incident but part of a grim pattern. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has long fueled proxy warfare, sponsoring attacks like the 1998 Watahama massacre, the 2000 Chhati Singh Pura killings, and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which left 166 dead. Recent incidents, including ambushes in Poonch and revived cross-border shelling, underscore a relentless campaign of terror.
Pakistan’s internal chaos—economic collapse, political instability, and surging extremism—has only amplified this threat. The ISI’s fingerprints are evident in recent infiltration bids and terror funding, as confirmed by intelligence reports. Meanwhile, China’s aggressive posturing along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), particularly in Ladakh, adds a second front. Beijing’s expanding military infrastructure and cyber espionage targeting Indian systems demand a robust response.
Why Proactive Action Is Non-Negotiable:
A full-scale war is neither practical nor desirable, but a limited, high-impact operation—akin to Uri or Balakot, yet with deeper strategic intent—could dismantle terrorist infrastructure and reassert deterrence. Such a mission would:
– **Neutralize terror launchpads** across the LoC, disrupting anti-India networks.
– **Restore public confidence** in Bharat’s security apparatus.
– **Signal resolve** to the global community, reinforcing Bharat’s zero-tolerance stance.
Take the 2016 surgical strikes as a case study: Indian Para Commandos crossed the LoC, destroyed terror camps, and returned without casualties. The operation crippled terror networks and sent a clear message to Pakistan. A similar, intelligence-driven strike today could target ISI-backed facilities, leveraging advanced surveillance and drone technology.
The Pakistan Conundrum:
Pakistan’s descent into chaos is no longer its own problem. Its military-intelligence nexus, desperate to deflect domestic unrest, has doubled down on exporting terrorism. The Pahalgam attack, intelligence sources suggest, was orchestrated with ISI support, mirroring tactics used in Pulwama. Bharat’s right to self-defense, enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, justifies neutralizing threats beyond its borders when national security is at stake.
The China Challenge:
China’s belligerence along the LAC complicates the equation. Since the 2020 Galwan clash, Beijing has bolstered its military presence, constructing roads, airstrips, and bunkers. Cyberattacks attributed to Chinese state actors have targeted Indian infrastructure, from power grids to defense systems. While avoiding direct confrontation, Bharat must maintain a fortified posture, backed by intelligence operations and strategic deployments, to counter this dual threat.
### Hybrid Warfare: The Internal Front
Terrorism today transcends borders. Online radicalization, sleeper cells, and narco-terrorism are infiltrating urban centers. In 2024, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) busted a narco-terror module in Punjab, uncovering links to Pakistan-based handlers. A successful military operation must complement internal crackdowns—enhanced intelligence, cyber defenses, and counter-insurgency measures. Laws targeting terror support systems, like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, must be strengthened to deter domestic enablers.
The Moral and Legal Case:
Bharat’s commitment to peace is unwavering, but peace cannot come at the cost of vulnerability. The right to self-defense is both legally grounded and morally justified when innocent lives are at stake. The Pahalgam attack, like Pulwama before it, demands a response that is not aggression but righteous retaliation.
Lessons from History, Voices of Today:
History warns against hesitation. The 1947 Kashmir conflict and the 1999 Kargil War showed that delayed responses embolden adversaries. Veterans like Lt. Gen. (Retd.) D.S. Hooda, who oversaw the 2016 strikes, advocate a proactive doctrine, emphasizing precision and speed. Security analysts, including former RAW chief A.S. Dulat, stress the need for strategic communication to manage global perceptions.
The timing is ripe. Global sentiment, shaped by the West’s focus on Indo-Pacific stability and alliances like the Quad, favors Bharat’s stance against terrorism. Friendly nations—France, the U.S., and Australia—recognize Bharat’s pivotal role in regional security, providing diplomatic cover for action.
The Way Forward:
Bharat stands at a crossroads. A decisive military operation—executed with precision, backed by diplomacy, and supported by robust cyber and intelligence frameworks—can secure the nation’s future. It will dismantle terror networks, deter future attacks, and affirm Bharat’s resolve to the world.
The Pahalgam attack is a grim reminder of the cost of complacency. Bharat seeks peace, but peace built on strength, not submission. The era of impunity is over. The time to act is now. Bharat must prevail—for its citizens, its sovereignty, and the principles it upholds.
(Note: Col. Dev Anand Lohamaror (Retd.) is a decorated veteran and security analyst with extensive experience in counter-terrorism operations.)
