Terror Attack 26/11

The 26/11 Mumbai attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks carried out by ten members of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba. They arrived in Mumbai by sea on the night of November 26, 2008, and targeted multiple high-profile locations, including the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Oberoi Trident Hotel, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST), and Nariman House.

The attacks resulted in the deaths of 166 people and left over 300 injured. The attackers used automatic weapons and grenades, causing widespread panic and destruction. The siege lasted for nearly four days, with Indian commandos working tirelessly to rescue hostages and neutralize the attackers. Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab was the only attacker captured alive, and his capture provided crucial information about the planning and execution of the attacks.

The decision not to militarily retaliate against Pakistan after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks has indeed been a subject of intense debate. Instead of a military response, India focused on diplomatic and strategic measures to address the situation, including:

1. International Pressure: India worked to build international pressure on Pakistan to take action against the perpetrators and dismantle terrorist networks operating from its soil.
2. Security Overhaul: Significant reforms were implemented to strengthen India's internal security apparatus, including the establishment of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the enhancement of coastal security.
3. Legal and Diplomatic Efforts: India pursued legal and diplomatic channels to bring the attackers and their handlers to justice, including the trial and execution of Ajmal Kasab.

The decision to avoid military retaliation was aimed at preventing further escalation and maintaining regional stability. However, it remains a contentious issue, with opinions divided on whether a stronger military response would have been more effective.

Former Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon defended the Indian government's decision not to militarily retaliate against Pakistan after the 26/11 attacks. In his book, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, Menon argued that while the decision was emotionally challenging, it was the right one given the circumstances. He believed that a military response could have escalated tensions and united Pakistan's population against India, potentially weakening the newly elected democratic government of Asif Ali Zardari.

Menon emphasized the importance of focusing on diplomatic, covert, and other non-military means to address the situation. His perspective highlights the complexity of foreign policy decisions and the need to balance immediate emotional responses with long-term strategic considerations.

1. International Sympathy

According to Shivshankar Menon, India garnered a significant wave of global sympathy after the 26/11 attacks. He contended that had India opted for military strikes against Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the international community might have perceived it as merely another flare-up in the ongoing India-Pakistan conflict, diluting the unique and widespread support India received. Menon's argument underscores the importance of leveraging international goodwill and maintaining a strategic focus on long-term diplomatic gains rather than immediate military retaliation.

2. Pakistani Politics

Menon pointed out that Pakistan had just elected a new civilian government, and the reputation of the military had been tarnished by the Musharraf years. He argued that the new government, led by Asif Ali Zardari, was inclined towards improving relations with India. A military response from India could have undermined this potential for better diplomatic ties and possibly strengthened the military's influence in Pakistan.

3. Limited Impact

Shivshankar Menon contended that a limited military strike on Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) camps would have been largely symbolic and ineffective. He pointed out that these camps, often comprising tin sheds and huts, could be easily rebuilt. Moreover, larger-scale attacks risked escalating into a full-scale military conflict with Pakistan, which could have had far-reaching and potentially devastating consequences for both nations. Menon emphasized that engaging in a war, even a successful one, would have come at a high cost. At the time, the world economy was in the throes of a severe financial crisis, teetering on the edge of another Great Depression. He argued that military action could have significantly hampered India's economic progress, diverting resources and attention away from addressing the economic challenges.

This perspective underscores the complexity and far-reaching implications of such decisions, weighing the immediate need for retaliation against the long-term economic stability and growth of the nation. It shows the careful consideration behind choosing a path that would ultimately preserve the nation's future prospects despite the pressure to respond militarily.

Manish Tewari's Criticism

Manish Tewari, a former Minister in the Congress government, has indeed been vocal about his criticism of the decision not to launch a military strike on LeT camps in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). He argued that such a strike would have sent a strong message to both Pakistan and the international community, demonstrating India's resolve against terrorism. Tewari believes that by refraining from military action, the Congress government was perceived as being "soft on terror."

1. Swift Justice: Tewari highlighted the frustration over the lack of immediate justice for the perpetrators of the 26/11 attacks. Many involved were not quickly brought to justice, and it took years of diplomatic efforts to impose sanctions on others. Tewari argued that Pakistan's government often obstructed these efforts, complicating the pursuit of justice.
2. Domestic Politics in Pakistan: Tewari pointed out that despite India's restraint, it did not achieve significant progress in Pakistan's domestic politics. The Pakistan Army continues to hold substantial power, while civilian politicians remain relatively weak. This dynamic has contributed to the stagnation of the peace process between India and Pakistan.

The debate between Menon's strategic patience and Tewari's call for a more assertive response reflects the complexities of international relations and the difficult choices faced by policymakers. It's a nuanced issue with no easy answers, highlighting the delicate balance between immediate action and long-term stability.