India is a responsible power, targeting terrorists beyond border is a statement of intent

In 1688, the Glorious Revolution in Britain took away the divine right from kings.

Another ‘glorious revolution’ is underway in international relations, and it has greatly shaken up the divine right that the West and some of its plaint legacy media, led by the US, presumed to be theirs.

In the past week, both the Indian prime minister and the defence minister have asserted that, if required, India will not hesitate to ensure its security, something that the US, Britain, and Israel have been doing themselves.

To secure these interests is as much science as a piece of art. It has to be calibrated, and after India’s loud assertions, it will have to be even more precise.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

Unfortunately for Pakistan, too many things are falling into place for outsiders to do an American-style hit job. The new Osamas are in deep trouble.

Too many people are willing to get the job done for a few dollars more. It is not just the dollars one feeds into other networks; there is also popular demand for free Sindh and Balochistan. Also, there are several other players in Pakistan, a country that has become a breeding ground for terrorism.

Pakistan is having an open season. It’s a porous place with guns for hire. The point, however, goes beyond an alleged Indian strike at terrorists and the neutralisation of those who have caused bloodshed.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

India has changed its security policy. That is the diplomatic message to Pakistan. The stakes go up between nuclear-armed antagonists. A strike against India will not be unilateral, and India is capable of reverting.

Terrorists operate across borders, making it difficult for states to apprehend them through conventional means. Preemption is an important criteria, as terrorists who pose an imminent threat to national security forfeit their right to due process.

Having said that, it has to be acknowledged that there is also an element of rhetoric in India’s security discourse, after all it’s election season.

When a left-wing pamphlet with its readership in terminal decline, called The Guardian from Britain, did a recent story alleging Indian cross border neutralisation of Islamic terror, it only ended up helping the BJP. It is not as if India is going to town tomorrow with a Wild West-style shootout.

A death by a thousand cuts that Pakistan planned meets India’s changed security strategy, but the allegations made by The Guardian are unfounded.

It is actually the Western World, with Osama’s killing in Pakistan being the most publicised, which has many such examples. In 2015, British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, authorised a drone strike in Syria that killed two British citizens. They were planning terrorist attacks in the UK. The decision sparked debate over the legality and ethics of such actions, particularly the targeting of citizens without due process, but the British public decided that they were not willing targets of jihad, and tax dollars that paid for the drones were put to good use. France routinely kills in Africa. The list goes on.

However, it must be understood that, though India has updated its security policies and interests, it is still a committed and responsible player in the community of nations, and biased and baseless claims by any foreign news outlet hardly hold any rational ground to doubt that.

The writer is a senior journalist with expertise in defence. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.