India has been trying a new strategy to deter terrorism from Pakistan. Is it working?

War drums are beating in India and Pakistan for the third time in 10 years, while the world watches anxiously.
As the nuclear-armed rivals engage in attacks and counterattacks, it's a good idea to revisit how things have played out in the recent past, and evaluate whether India's policy of muscular retaliation is working.
India has, for decades, struggled to deter terrorist attacks from across the border in the disputed Kashmir region.
Though Pakistan has always denied involvement in these incidents, the denials largely fall on deaf ears in India and internationally, given the country's self-admitted history of supporting terrorism in Kashmir.
India's relationship with its north-western neighbour has been marred and twisted over the decades by repeated attacks from Pakistan-backed terrorists.
Many times, those attacks came as the two governments tried to conduct peace talks and normalise relations, forcing India to abandon those efforts.
Prior to 2014, under successive governments, India had followed a policy of restraint.
When an attack by Pakistan-based militants occurred, killing soldiers or civilians, India would take largely diplomatic actions, like suspending dialogue, expelling diplomats, and issuing public condemnations.
But military action was considered too risky under the nuclear umbrella.
It is hard to overstate just how much the Pakistan problem influenced India's domestic politics.
The desire to respond strongly to these attacks became a central plank in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's election campaign in 2014 and beyond.
After witnessing years of Indian self-control, much of its public now believe the risk of escalating into war is worth it — because no country can go on absorbing terrorist attacks forever.
Under Modi's government, India pursued a bold new policy against cross-border terrorism in Kashmir — one where it isn't too afraid to escalate.
So, how have these conflicts provoked by terrorism played out under the new strategy?
In September 2016, 19 Indian soldiers were killed by terrorists from internationally proscribed Pakistan-based group Jaish-e-Mohamed (JeM).
The attackers hit an army brigade headquarters in the town of Uri in the wee hours of the morning.
The Indian government was under pressure to retaliate.
India undertook "surgical strikes" in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir in response, in what was considered a serious escalation.
It claimed "significant casualties" were dealt to "terrorist launch pads" along the de facto border, but never officially released numbers.
Pakistan denied such an incursion happened, claiming that only small arms fire was exchanged across the border, and that only two of its soldiers were killed.
Many news outlets jumped the gun, reporting that commandos had crossed the Line of Control, which divides the disputed Kashmir region between India and Pakistan, and killed large numbers of terrorists after being airdropped from helicopters.
Independent analysts and reports in the days after, suggested limited action had been taken across the border with ground forces, and did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory.
Indian opposition politicians then came out and said that these strikes were actually no different to what previous governments had carried out, they had just not been as widely publicised.
But the publicity was part of Modi's new strategy of dealing with terrorists in stronger language.
In this new formulation, "soft" responses by India to cross-border militancy, like suspending dialogue and issuing condemnations, did nothing to deter future attacks.
With these "surgical" attacks, the public's appetite to see something done, was sated.
Again in 2019, JeM terrorists attacked a convoy of vehicles carrying Indian security personnel in the town of Pulwama in Kashmir.
Forty personnel were killed by four terrorists who crossed the border.
This time, India responded with more force than before: it launched air strikes deep into Pakistani territory at Balakot, for the first time since their 1971 war, alarming international observers.
India claimed it had struck JeM's "biggest training camp", and killed a "very large number" of terrorists, trainers and "groups of jihadis".
While the government did not provide figures, India's home minister put the number at 250 during a speech at an election rally.
The air strike was praised in Indian media as a strong message to Pakistan. But there was a hitch.
Pakistan launched retaliatory air raids on Indian territory the next morning, capturing an Indian pilot after an aerial dogfight.
It was an ignominious development for the Indian government, which had billed itself as the unquestionably superior military power.
Pakistan eventually handed the pilot back to India unharmed after his much-publicised capture, giving both countries a face-saving measure they could each declare victory over, and the conflict fizzled out.
Independent analysts, including the foreign policy think tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute, later said there had been little evidence of India killing large numbers of people in the Balakot air strikes, but suggested this was a deliberate decision to avoid further escalation.
But in the elections that followed, Modi was rewarded with a landslide victory.
On April 22, four terrorists attacked tourists in the Kashmiri town of Pahalgam, killing 26 Indian civilians and one Nepali.
India blamed Pakistan-backed terrorists for the attack and 15 days later, struck nine sites in Pakistan, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
It deemed the response "non-escalatory" as it hit only "terrorist infrastructure".
This week, the flurry of fake news and misinformation online has reached fever-pitch.
Pakistani and Indian social media accounts are each posting videos of strikes and attacks from unrelated past conflicts, capitalising on the global interest, each pushing a nationalist agenda.
Fact-checkers like Indian outlet Alt News have been debunking these posts as they proliferate, trying to keep a check on the fearmongering and chest-thumping.
The enormous amounts of fake news and unverified claims emanating from both countries make a sensible reading of the risks difficult.
Already, two prominent publications covering this conflict — Bloomberg TV and Indian publication The Hindu — have been forced to make substantive retractions.
But this time around, the Indian government hit deeper into Pakistani territory than before, striking nine sites, though it did so from its own airspace.
India showed footage in a press conference of its missiles hitting targets in Pakistani territory, showing the "terrorist infrastructure".
The JeM chief Masood Azhar himself came out and said that 10 of his family members, including children, had been killed in the Indian strikes, while Pakistan claims 26 civilian casualties.
India denies any civilians were killed.
In response to India's attack, Pakistan claims it has downed five Indian planes as the two countries' air forces battled it out in the skies from their own airspaces.
India has not addressed the claim yet, adding to the general confusion, but US and French officials have confirmed to Reuters and CNN that at least one Indian plane appears to have been downed.
Over the past few hours, each side claimed the other launched drone attacks into their territory, which were repelled successfully.
It would mark the first time the two countries have engaged in drone warfare.
There are also face-saving off-ramps available now.
Pakistan can say it got the better of the Indian attack into its territory by downing planes, and India can say it extracted a price for terrorism.
The Indian government's policy around retaliation, despite the risk of escalating into war, was based on the idea that this would deter terrorist attacks from across the border.
But the terror attacks that India has responded to militarily over the Modi government's reign aren't the only such attacks India has suffered.
Data on fatalities from terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir from the New Delhi-based South Asia Terrorism Portal indicate a complicated picture.
From highs of over 4,000 fatalities per year in 2001, the numbers in recent years are down to 100-200 — a sharp decline.
They began dropping steadily in 2002, and continued on that trajectory for 11 years, dropping to 121 in 2012, two years before Modi took over.
That was the lowest level since 1990.
"The reason for that is the change in the international environment after 9/11," said Dr Ajai Sahni, Executive Director of the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the largest database on such conflicts in the region.
"The Americans conducted thousands of drone attacks in Pakistan on terrorists and terrorist camps, Pakistan was under a lot of pressure," he said.
The Modi government came to power in 2014, and the numbers started inching back up, peaking at 452 in 2018.
In 2023, the fatalities dropped again, sitting at 127 in 2024.
There's little indication in the data that the Indian government's new policy of military retaliation to terror over the last 11 years has had an effect on the numbers, either directly or indirectly.
Sahni said a different tactic does seem to have an effect in bringing the numbers down since 2023.
"One positive policy was that [the government] started prosecuting people associated with terrorism. There was prosecution for funding terrorism, for associating with terrorists, for facilitating terrorists, not just the primary acts of terrorism," he said.
Proponents of the muscular Indian policy say the aim is not merely to reduce the numbers in the short-term, but to cause enough political pain and embarrassment to Pakistan in the long-term, that its leadership is forced to give up its support of terrorism.
But whether Pakistan is being embarrassed on the global stage is far from clear.
A lack of clarity around the specifics of these battles leaves a question in the world's minds as to who has actually come out on top.
All this leaves India in a difficult position.
Decades of restraint in the face of deadly terrorism incensed the Indian population, helping sweep the ruling party to power.
Now, over a decade of retaliation has given a large portion of the public what they wanted, but it comes with serious escalation risks, and ever-greater scrutiny by the international community.
For a country that wants to be focusing on its competition with China and its play for great power status, India can't seem to get out of the Pakistan quagmire.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

SBS Australia

10 hours ago

• SBS Australia

What we know and don't know about Iran's nuclear ambitions

Natanz nuclear facility in central Iran has been targeted by Israel in recent airstrikes. Source: EPA, AAP / Abedin Taherkenareh While Iran's perceived nuclear capabilities are a key driver of the country's ongoing hostilities with Israel, there is much that remains unknown about Tehran's nuclear program and some experts argue the program's true endgame remains unclear. According to Israeli officials, the primary goal of the 13 June attacks on Iran, which started the ongoing air war between the countries, was to wipe out Iran's nuclear program. Israel accuses the Islamic Republic of Iran of seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describes as an "existential threat to Israel". However, the Iranian regime has always denied claims it's pursuing nuclear weapons, saying its program is aimed at "developing civilian nuclear power". Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly emphasised his 2003 fatwa (Islamic legal ruling) against the development of nuclear weapons. Dara Conduit, a political science lecturer at Melbourne University, told SBS News that it's "very difficult to know" what's motivating Iran's nuclear program. "The best information we have is the US Intelligence Assessment that was released in March, which said that there was no evidence that Iran was attempting to make a nuclear weapon." Then, Gabbard said the US intelligence community didn't believe Iran was building a nuclear weapon. On Saturday, she said her testimony had been taken "out of context" and provided a new appraisal. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalise the assembly," she said. However, a source with access to US intelligence reports told Reuters the March assessment had not changed. They claimed the country's spy services estimated it would take Iran up to three years to develop a warhead capable of hitting a target of its choice. Iran's civilian nuclear program began in the 1950s with US support under the Atoms for Peace initiative. That support was ended by the 1979 Islamic Revolution, after which Iran started to work with Russia and China on nuclear projects. It wasn't until 2002, when information about undeclared enrichment sites in central Iran was brought to light, that the world became aware of significant advancements of Iran's nuclear program since the revolution. However, there was no official statement on the country's enrichment capability until 2006, when then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iranian scientists had successfully enriched uranium to 3.5 per cent. Most civilian nuclear reactors require 3 to 5 per cent enrichment. While a nuclear weapon can be made with uranium that's only 20 per cent enriched, nuclear-armed nations usually use about 90 per cent enriched uranium, ANU Department of Nuclear Physics researcher Kaitlin Cook wrote in a recent Conversation article. A day before Israel's strikes, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was able to produce 34 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent each month. According to the IAEA, Iran also had enough uranium enriched to near-weapons grade to build nine nuclear bombs if it were further enriched. "The problem is that they are enriching uranium to a level that is far higher than what would be required for a civilian nuclear capacity," Conduit said. "Why are they doing that? We don't know. "It could be that the regime is intending to pursue a nuclear weapon, or it could be that the regime is trying to strengthen its hand [for] when it does get back to the negotiating table." The IAEA's June assessment found that Iran was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations and it could not declare the country's nuclear program was "exclusively peaceful", as per the terms of a 2015 nuclear deal. In 2015, Iran and the "P5+1 group" — comprising the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany — reached a deal that committed signatories to limit their nuclear programs in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. As part of the deal, Iran agreed that for 15 years it would enrich uranium only up to 3.67 per cent. However, in 2018, a first-term Donald Trump decided to exit the agreement negotiated under his predecessor, Barack Obama. "It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement," he said at the time. Conduit said Trump's decision was made despite the fact that "Iran was upholding its side of the agreement". "I guess that was the first step towards the crisis that we see Iran in now." Following Trump's re-election in 2024, he said he was looking to make a new deal with Iran. In recent months, Iranian and American representatives have held several rounds of negotiations, mainly focusing on enrichment. During the negotiations, the Iranian foreign minister said his nation would not accept suspending uranium enrichment completely, something US officials have demanded. Israel's strike on Iran effectively halted that round of negotiations. On Saturday, Gideon Sa'ar, Israel's foreign minister, told German newspaper Bild that his country's strikes had already delayed Iran's potential to develop a nuclear weapon by "at least two or three years". In a statement on Friday, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi confirmed some damage to various nuclear facilities in Iran, but didn't clarify the precise impacts on the country's nuclear enrichment capabilities.

ABC News

20 hours ago

• ABC News

Donald Trump says Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran's nuclear threat

US President Donald Trump says his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard was wrong in suggesting there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

Daily Telegraph

20 hours ago

• Daily Telegraph

If Iran's bunkers are busted, what might escape?

Don't miss out on the headlines from World. Followed categories will be added to My News. Remember Chernobyl? Remember Fukushima? So, is bombing Iran's nuclear facilities really such a good idea? Concern is growing across the Middle East that the fallout of Israel's assault on Iran will not just be political, economic and potentially military. They're anxiously watching for spikes in radiation. Qatar's energy ministry has announced it has enhanced its monitoring activities and is working with neighbouring states to plan for any necessary response. 'We have to emphasise, when we are talking about the waters of the Gulf, it's the main source of water for all of us here in the region,' foreign ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari told media this week. 'The international community has to make it very clear that any targeting of nuclear facilities, any targeting of fuel or energy facilities in this region, would have ramifications that are unknown to us in the Gulf.' Iran has only one functioning nuclear reactor, at Bushehr on the country's southwestern coast. There is also a small research reactor near Tehran. Iran's heavy water reactor complex in Arak, June 18. Picture: Maxar / Supplied And the next day. Picture: Maxar / Supplied But it does have several uranium processing plants and nuclear research facilities scattered around the country. Usually deep underground. Israel has struck several nuclear sites in the past week. Natanz Mount Kolang Gaz La Tunnel complex. Picture: Supplied It's hit Iran's largest uranium enrichment plant at Natanz in the central province of Isfahan. The smaller Fordow fuel enrichment plant near the city of Qom has been damaged. As has a heavy water nuclear plant in Arak. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that radioactive material has been released at at least one site. 'Within the Natanz facility there is both radiological and chemical contamination,' its director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, stated earlier this week. 'Considering the type of nuclear material at this facility, it is possible that Uranium isotopes contained in Uranium Hexafluoride, Uranyl Fluoride and Hydrogen Fluoride are dispersed inside the facility.' But Uranium enrichment and heavy water plants are not nuclear reactors. And that's a critical factor in assessing the risk of any bombing campaign. Iran's bunkers. Picture: Maxar / Supplied Radiological release Explosions and drone strikes on and around Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant have sent shivers through the spines of nuclear analysts around the world since President Vladimir Putin's 2022 invasion. His troops now occupy the site. And while it has been idled to halt the flow of electricity, it still poses a serious environmental risk. Ukraine knows what that means. The forest surrounding the wreck of the Soviet-era Chornobyl power plant is expected to remain unsafe for human habitation for at least 22,000 years. And the clean-up of Japan's Fukushima isn't likely to be completed before the mid-2050s. So what about Iran's bombed nuclear facilities? Only reactors have the highly radioactive fuel rods needed to turn water into the superheated steam that drives generators to produce electricity. Picture: Open Source Centre Picture: Open Source Centre So far, Iran's reactors at Bushehr and Tehran have been spared from attack. Its uranium enrichment and heavy water manufacturing plants, however, have not. Uranium enrichment involves powerful centrifuges. These spin uranium yellowcake, as dug out of the ground, into powders and gas. And the spinning separates these materials into their component isotopes (atomic elements) according to their weight. Weapons-grade enrichment demands concentrations of the isotope U-235 of more than 90 per cent. Nuclear fuel only needs between 3 and 5 per cent. Iran is alleged to have amassed 400kg of uranium enriched to 60 per cent U-235. And the effort needed to take that to 90 per cent represents only a fortnight inside the centrifuges. Even then, the material is not suitable for weapons. The gas and powders must be turned into a metal. Only then can it be machined into devices capable of triggering a nuclear detonation. So, the most significant risk of bombing processing sites such as Natanz is the release of uranium hexafluoride gas. The main aboveground facilities at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility. This June 15 satellite photo reveals the extent of damage from Israel's weekend air raids. Picture: Maxar / Institute for Science and International Security This mountain at Natanz is believed to contain Iran's main uranium enrichment plant, capable of producing radioactive materials suitable for use in nuclear weapons. Picture: Institute for Science and International Security 'It's a big, heavy gas molecule,' says University of Alabama at Birmingham physicist Emily Caffrey. 'It's likely not going to travel super-far.' That means any escape from sites such as Fordow will likely only contaminate the immediate area. But the attack on the Arak reactor, some 250km southwest of Tehran, could potentially have produced more severe contamination. Heavy water is used for medical processes and nuclear research. And while not radioactive itself, the process of making it can produce deadly plutonium and deuterium. Both can be used in nuclear weapons. Picture: Airbus Defence and Space Picture: Airbus Defence and Space Long term threat 'We have nothing to be concerned about right now, but obviously prolonged escalation will have unpredictable consequences,' warns Qatar's al-Ansari. Assessment of satellite photos reveals most of the above-ground structures at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility have been destroyed. But the sites associated with the deep underground caverns holding the vital centrifuges appear untouched. That, according to analysts, does not mean they're undamaged. Sudden interruption to the power control could send the centrifuges spinning out of control. And shockwaves from nearby blasts could topple them from their mountings. The similar Fordow bunker facility does not yet appear to have been hit. But it is believed to be where most of the highly enriched, 60 per cent U-235 material is located. 'There's not a significant, dire health threat if those materials got released to the environment,' Union of Concerned Scientists spokesman Edwin Lymann told US public media. The kinds of uranium isotopes found within these facilities 'are at the low end of hazard with regard to radioactive materials,' he added. The IAEA agrees. To a point. Picture: Institute for Science and International Security Picture: Maxar 'The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if Uranium is inhaled or ingested,' Director Grossi states. 'However, this risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the affected facilities. The main concern inside the facility is the chemical toxicity of the Uranium Hexafluoride and the Fluoride compounds generated at the contact with water.' Uranium hexafloride can combine with moisture in the air to create hydrofluoric acid. This is highly corrosive and is used in glass etching and electronics manufacturing. But it can enter the human body through the skin, eyes or inhalation. 'That is an acutely hazardous material that can harm or kill people,' Lyman explains. Once in the body, it interferes with the nervous system and burns soft tissues. But not all of Israel's targets are limited to Uranium Hexafluoride. Images of the heavy water facility at Arak show its central reactor structure has been hit. And analysts say four other nuclear sites, mostly associated with turning the enriched uranium into a metal, have been targeted. This potentially means long-lived, highly radioactive fragments are scattered among the debris. Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer Originally published as If Iran's bunkers are busted, what might escape?