The recent Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir, which saw innocent Hindu tourists brutally murdered, has reignited debate over Bharat’s counter-terrorism doctrine. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government responded swiftly and assertively, promising harsh retribution and unveiling a multi-pronged action plan. This approach stands in marked contrast to the UPA government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which relied heavily on international diplomacy and legal avenues. A closer look at both eras, including the landmark Myanmar surgical strike, reveals how Bharat’s counter-terrorism posture has evolved.
Pahalgam Attack: Modi Government’s Robust Response
After the Pahalgam attack, PM Modi issued a stern warning that Bharat would “pursue [the terrorists] till the ends of the earth,” promising a punishment “beyond their imagination.” The government’s response included:
- Intensified counter-terror operations in Jammu & Kashmir.
- Diplomatic steps to isolate Pakistan globally.
- Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty as a punitive measure.
- Enhanced security for vulnerable groups and tourists.
- High-level security reviews and deployment of advanced counter-terror capabilities.
The Bharatiya Navy’s missile test in the Arabian Sea further signaled military readiness. These actions are consistent with the Modi government’s established pattern of direct, kinetic responses to terror, as seen after the Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019) attacks, which led to surgical strikes and the Balakot airstrike, respectively.
The 2015 Myanmar Surgical Strike: A Doctrinal Watershed
A pivotal moment in Bharat’s counter-terrorism strategy came with the 2015 cross-border operation in Myanmar, codenamed Operation Hot Pursuit. This was Bharat’s first publicly acknowledged cross-border strike against insurgents in a neighboring country and set the tone for future responses:
- Trigger: The operation was launched after 18 Bharatiya soldiers were killed in an ambush by NSCN-K militants in Manipur’s Chandel district.
- Execution: 21 Para (Special Forces) commandos, supported by Mi-17 helicopters, crossed into Myanmar and destroyed two insurgent camps in a swift, 40-minute assault. Bharatiya officials reported around 38 insurgents killed, with no casualties on the Bharatiya side.
- Strategic Impact: The strike demonstrated Bharat’s willingness to pursue terrorists across borders, marking a clear departure from previous doctrines of strategic restraint. The operation was meticulously planned and executed with top-level political clearance, sending a strong message to both eastern and western adversaries.
This operation established a new “hot pursuit” doctrine, which was later mirrored in the surgical strikes following the Uri attack and the Balakot airstrike after Pulwama.
Manmohan Singh Era: Diplomacy, Dossiers, and Restraint
After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the UPA government under Manmohan Singh adopted a three-pronged strategy:
- International Cooperation: Building global consensus and urging international action against Pakistan-based terror groups.
- Diplomatic Pressure: Submitting detailed dossiers of evidence to Pakistan and international agencies, and leveraging United Nations sanctions.
- Domestic Security: Modernizing security forces, improving intelligence, and decentralizing the National Security Guard (NSG).
Singh’s approach was rooted in restraint, emphasizing unity and avoiding military escalation. While this won international support, critics argue it lacked tangible punitive actions. Over time, the government’s stance softened, focusing on dialogue and engagement even as perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks evaded justice.
Comparative Table: Modi vs. Manmohan Singh Responses
| Aspect | Modi Government (BJP) | Manmohan Singh Government (Congress/UPA) |
|---|---|---|
| Immediate Response | Strong, public warnings; vows of retribution | Calls for unity; apologies for security lapses |
| Military Action | Cross-border strikes: Myanmar (2015), Uri (2016), Balakot (2019) | No cross-border strikes; focus on restraint |
| Diplomatic Measures | International isolation of Pakistan, treaty suspension | Dossiers, UN sanctions, global consensus |
| Domestic Security | Enhanced security, tech upgrades, proactive ops | NSG decentralization, intelligence reforms |
| Long-term Impact | Assertive deterrence, shift in doctrine | Criticized for lack of punitive follow-through |
Key Examples: From Myanmar to Balakot
- Myanmar (2015): In retaliation for the Manipur ambush, Bharatiya Special Forces crossed into Myanmar and destroyed insurgent camps, killing dozens of militants. This was the first such operation publicly acknowledged by Bharat, signaling a new era of proactive counter-terrorism.
- Uri (2016) & Balakot (2019): Following major terror attacks, Bharat conducted surgical strikes in Pakistan-administered territory and an airstrike in Balakot, escalating the scale and visibility of its responses.
- Diplomatic Isolation: The Modi government has consistently sought to isolate Pakistan diplomatically and suspend key agreements, such as the Indus Waters Treaty, in response to terror attacks.
Closing Remarks: Evolving Security Doctrine and the Future of Hindu Civilization
The Pahalgam attack and Bharat’s robust response under PM Modi underscore a decisive shift in the nation’s counter-terrorism doctrine—from dossiers and diplomatic restraint to direct, cross-border action and deterrence. The 2015 Myanmar surgical strike was a turning point, setting the precedent for subsequent kinetic operations. For Hindu civilization and Bharatiya society at large, these developments reflect a renewed assertion of national will and a commitment to defending its people against terror.
Bharat’s future security strategy will likely continue to blend proactive military measures with diplomatic efforts, ensuring that acts of terror are met with swift and resolute action. The message is unequivocal: Bharat’s resolve to protect its citizens and civilization is stronger than ever, and its patience for cross-border terrorism has run out.
