The Non-Committal Diplomacy
On the night of November 26, 2008, terror struck the heart of Mumbai as ten heavily armed men from Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba unleashed a calculated and brutal assault on India’s financial capital. Over the course of three harrowing days, 175 innocent lives were lost, and more than 300 were wounded.
Iconic landmarks like the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, the Oberoi, and the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus became battlegrounds, etched into collective memory as symbols of a nation's suffering. Yet, in the aftermath, the Indian government chose to exercise military restraint. This decision has since been mired in controversy, seen by many as emblematic of India’s reputation as a "soft state."
The restraint was defended by then-Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, who cited reasons including international sympathy, the fragility of Pakistani civilian politics, and the limited impact of potential strikes.
However, these justifications fail to address the deeper realities of India’s security and sovereignty. A firm, decisive response to Pakistan was not merely an option—it was a necessity.
A Missed Opportunity to Assert Sovereignty
India’s choice not to militarily retaliate against Pakistan in the wake of 26/11 signaled weakness to the world and emboldened its adversaries. Lashkar-e-Taiba, a proxy of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), planned and executed an attack of unprecedented magnitude.
Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone surviving terrorist, testified to Pakistan’s direct involvement, leaving no ambiguity. Yet, India’s measured response failed to hold Pakistan accountable in a manner that would deter future transgressions.
Menon’s argument that military action would have diluted global sympathy for India underestimates the world’s capacity for moral clarity. The undeniable evidence of Pakistan’s role in the attacks meant India had an unparalleled opportunity to garner international support for targeted action.
This was not a "dispute between two traditional rivals"; it was a clear case of state-sponsored terrorism. Striking the Lashkar-e-Taiba camps would have sent an unequivocal message that India would no longer tolerate proxy wars waged under the guise of deniability.
The Cost of Restraint
Menon’s claim that restraint solidified India’s moral high ground is at odds with the reality that Pakistan’s terror apparatus remains as potent as ever. In the 15 years since 26/11, Pakistan has continued to nurture terrorism as a state policy, as evidenced by attacks in Pulwama and Uri.
India’s inaction in 2008 likely reinforced Pakistan’s belief that it could act with impunity, confident that India would prioritize diplomacy over decisive action.
Moreover, Menon’s assertion that civilian casualties would have tarnished India’s reputation is hollow when weighed against the cost of inaction. Lashkar-e-Taiba camps deliberately placed near civilian infrastructure were a shield for terror—not an excuse for inaction.
Precision strikes, coupled with robust diplomatic efforts, could have neutralized this threat while maintaining India’s standing as a responsible power.
The Fragility of Peace
Menon’s optimism about Pakistan’s civilian government in 2008 now seems tragically misplaced.
The civilian leadership in Pakistan has always been subservient to the military establishment, which thrives on anti-India rhetoric and fosters groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba to serve its geopolitical agenda.
Restraint in 2008 did not strengthen Pakistan’s civilian leadership—it merely allowed the military to regroup and continue its proxy war against India. The "peace process" Menon sought to preserve has been stagnant for over a decade, with no meaningful progress.
A Stronger India for a Safer Future
India's decision to refrain from military retaliation after 26/11 reflects a bygone era of hesitancy and misplaced priorities.
Today, under a more assertive leadership, India has begun to redefine its approach.
The surgical strikes after the Uri attack and the Balakot airstrikes post-Pulwama stand as examples of a nation unwilling to be cowed by terror.
These responses have sent a clear message: India will protect its sovereignty and ensure that its citizens do not live under the shadow of unchecked aggression.
The lessons of 26/11 must inform India’s future. The failure to strike in 2008 left scars not just on those who endured the attacks but on the nation’s psyche. India cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.
A strong state is not one that avoids conflict but one that meets threats head-on with clarity and conviction.
The time for moral high grounds is over. The time for an unapologetically strong India is now.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.