Parrikar is right. Inflict deep pain on terrorists
Minister for Defence Manohar Parrikar may have been making a personal point when he said that individuals and organisations that inflict pain on India through terrorist attacks must be made to feel similar pain. “Until the pain is transferred to them, they will not understand”, he added. But the stand cannot be faulted even if it were to become official Government policy. Countries like Israel have a stated policy to this effect, and they have adhered to it despite many challenges they have had to face. It is one of the reasons why these nations have been able to more effectively counter terror strikes than those that have been ambivalent in their actions. It must not be assumed that ‘return the pain' approach is at odds with peace-initiatives or can sabotage diplomatic efforts to arrive at solutions. Diplomacy between countries can go on and various out-of-the-box measures can be discussed and implemented. However, those striking terror have to be also simultaneously dealt with, and in a language the terrorists understand. Since Mr Parrikar's remarks came in the aftermath of the Pathankot attack by Pakistan-based militants, it is clear that the Minister's immediate warning was directed at those terrorists. Several senior functionaries of the Union Government have been saying the same thing in different words; indeed, Mr Parrikar himself had used similarly belligerent language against Pakistan-based militants in recent times. The Government must adopt an unambiguous ‘pay a price for terror' policy and, more important, implement it without being apologetic. If India has been repeatedly hit by terrorists, one of the reasons is that it does precious little to teach the individuals/groups involved a befitting lesson. Our brave security personnel face the terrorists, eliminate them, and lose their own lives. Yet, we have never undertaken direct action against the elements behind the attack. The matter of ‘hot pursuit' has been discussed but never implemented for various reasons. In fact, by some twisted logic, it is deemed irresponsible and akin to sabre-rattling if anybody talks of crossing borders to target terrorists that have been claiming innocent Indian lives over the decades and not being brought to book by the Government there.
Yet, no country in the world that has suffered like India follows the niceties. The US hunted Osama bin laden down in Pakistan and eliminated him there; Israel, of course, thinks nothing of tracking down and then neutralising its enemies, whichever part of the world they may be living in. For Israel, it's not a question of ‘if'; it's just a matter of ‘when'. Russia has been bombing Islamic State facilities in Syria — and so has France, more viciously, after the Paris terror attack. Interestingly, while some of our commentators wring their hands, apprehensive that any direct action by India without the United Nations’ backing could backfire, none of the strikes mentioned above had a UN mandate. In the India-Pakistan context, we have seen that our failure to take military action against terrorists who operate from foreign soil has not just emboldened the militants but also their handlers. This narrative is bound to remain intact if our response does not change from mere rhetoric to tangible and carefully calculated retribution.