Pre-cum-Mains GS Foundation Program for UPSC 2026 | Starting from 5th Dec. 2024 Click Here for more information
Source: The post on counterterrorism policies is based on the article “Realism, not machismo, to counter terror” published in “The Hindu” on 14th November 2023.
Syllabus: GS2- International relation- India and its neighborhood- relations.
News: The article discusses India’s strategic restraint after the 2008 Mumbai attacks and contrasts it with Israel’s response to Hamas. It argues that India’s non-aggressive approach led to international support and economic growth, while Israel’s aggressive tactics only increased support for the Palestinian cause.
About the 2008 Mumbai attacks
The 2008 Mumbai attacks, conducted by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militants, involved coordinated shootings and bombings across Mumbai, India. It remains one of the most significant terrorist incidents in India’s recent history.
What is Israel-Palestine Conflict?
The Israel-Palestine conflict is a long-standing dispute between Israelis and Palestinians over land, national identity, and sovereignty, involving issues like borders, security, and control of Jerusalem. It has led to multiple wars and ongoing tensions.
For more detailed information on Israel-Palestine Conflict read here
What is the difference between actions taken by India and Israel in response to the attacks?
India’s Response to 2008 Mumbai Attacks:
Strategic Restraint: India refrained from immediate military retaliation against Pakistan.
International Diplomacy: Emphasized global diplomacy, gaining support from the U.S. and other nations.
Avoiding Escalation: Avoided a potential nuclear crisis and economic downturn during the global financial crisis.
Israel’s Response to 2023 Hamas Attack:
Military Action: Israel responded to the Hamas attack with a violent military response.
Global Perception: This action inadvertently brought the Palestinian issue to the forefront globally.
Contrasting Outcome: Unlike India’s approach, Israel’s response increased international sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
What impact did India’s restraint have on Pakistan?
Economic Decline: Post-26/11, Pakistan experienced a significant economic downturn. Real GDP growth plummeted, and Foreign Direct Investment dropped by 42% by 2010.
International Image: The global perception of Pakistan shifted negatively. The United Nations designated the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) as a terrorist organization in 2010, reinforcing its association with terrorism.
Reduced U.S. Aid: Following 26/11, there was a call, notably by then-Senator Joe Biden, to reduce U.S. military aid to Pakistan, which had increased post-9/11 for combating Taliban and al-Qaeda militants.
Legislative Changes: The U.S. Senate passed the revised Kerry-Lugar Bill in 2009, tripling non-military assistance to Pakistan but imposing conditions that were perceived as offensive by Pakistan, further straining relations.
What should be done?
International Diplomacy: Focus on diplomacy and building international alliances, similar to India’s garnering of global support post-Mumbai attacks.
Economic Stability: Prioritize maintaining economic stability during global crises, as India did by avoiding war during the 2008 financial crisis.
Counter-Terrorism Measures: Implement calculated, targeted actions against terrorism, akin to India’s Balakot air strikes, demonstrating strength without widespread conflict.
Avoid Aggressive Responses: Learn from Israel’s 2023 response to Hamas, understanding that aggressive military action can inadvertently increase global sympathy for the opposition’s cause.
Question to practice
Examine how India’s and Israel’s distinct responses to terror attacks impacted their global standing and economy.
