When I remember the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, one question arise that "why India didn't attack Pakistan after Mumbai terror attacks?", even then India had enough evidence of Pakistan involvement in the attacks.
Why India did not used its force against Pakistan for supporting the terrorist? When I pressed myself back at that time, I asked myself there should have some sort of visible retaliation, either against the LeT in Mudrike, in Pakistan's Punjab province, or terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, or against the ISI, the evidence which was clearly showing the Pakistan involvement in the terror attacks. The government should have gone some way towards erasing the shame of incompetence that Indian Army, Police and security agencies displayed in the world's television glare for the three/four days.
At that time and after the attack, the government had a series of informal discussions and meetings that considered for the India's responses. The then national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, had organized the review of our military and other options with the political leadership, and the military chiefs convey their views to the then Prime Minister. After the review M.K. Narayanan had urged the then external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee and also Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that we should retaliate to deter further attacks, for the international credibility reasons and to relieve public sentiment.
According to the then NSA M.K. Narayanan, Pakistan had crossed a line, so that action demanded against Pakistan more than a normal response by Indian Army. He had preffered to covert action against LeT or terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the sponsers of terrorism, the ISI. The then External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee had seemed to agree with then NSA views and spoked publicly of all our options being open. In that meetings and discussions the government had considered the response options after Mumbai attacks and about the escalation that could occur in the response to the Pakistan.
But I now believe that the government's decision not to retaliate after 26/11 and choosen to concentrate on diplomatic and other means was the right decision for that time...
Why the Government had choosen not to retaliate?
The answer of the query why India decided not retaliate after Mumbai terror attack" is that after considering the India's options at the highest levels of the government, the Indian goverment would have concluded that more can be gained from not retaliating Pakistan than from retaliating it.
Let us consider what might had happened had India attacked Pakistan.
The fact of Pakistan involvement in the Mumbai terror attack would have been difficult to understand. As far as the entire world was concerned, the attack would have seen as just another dispute between the two neighbouring country. India had experienced in 1947 India Pakistan War when India took the aggression of Pakistan in Kashmir in 1947, to the UN Security Council.
There was enough evidence that showed the Pakistan Army involvement in the invasion, but the Security Council of United Nation played politics and treated both the aggressor and victims as same, imposing a immediate cease-fire. The entire world asked both the country to call for peace. The Pakistan itself approached the United States and the United Kingdom asking that India be restrained from launching a war between two nuclear weapon states.
If India would have attack on Pakistan or against only those terrorist groups in Pakistan that attacked on Mumbai, it could have united Pakistan behind their Army, the result of which could had increased domestic disrepute, disagreed on India's policy with the democratic government under President Asif Zardari. It would also have weakened the Pakistan government, which wanted a better relationship with India than the Pakistan Army.
The Pakistan information minister, Sherry Rehman had lost her job under pressure from the army, soon after he had said publicly that Kasab was a Pakistani. In fact the Pakistan had moved mobilized troops to the India-Pakistan border before the attack began, and then talking about the mobilization of India.
Actually the Pakistan army wanted to strengthen its internal position, which had been weakened in the regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf as president, therefore a war scare had been created by Pakistan.
if India had a limited strike on terrorist groups like, the LeT headquarters or the LeT camps in POK would have had limited effect on the organization, like the US had missile strikes on al Qaeda in Khost, Afghanistan, in August 1998 in response to the U.S. embassies bombing in Kenya and Tanzania. The camps of LeT were in the form of tin sheds and huts, that could be easily rebuilt. The LeT camps had been deliberately built near or beside schools and hospitals, so the damage of civilian was almost certain. Even if there were no civilian casualties from the Indian attack, the ISI could be alleged the casualties due to attack.
The terrorist groups in Pakistan like the LeT were receiving huge support of the people of Pakistan and also by the goverment that could not have stopped with limited surgical strike. Also if the India would have attack Pakistan and even a successful war imposed, its costs setback the progress of Indian economy at the time when the world economy was in an unprecedented financial crisis that seemed to lead to another Great Depression in November 2008. So the decision of attack would have really irrelevant.
Lets consider what did happened when India choosen not to attack Pakistan & its terror groups.
India is a responsible country and have strengthen their position in the international community by taking the decision not to attack Pakistan after Mumbai attack, and used all of its efforts, legal & covert means to bringing the perpetrators of the attack to justice, force consequences on Pakistan by uniting the international community for its behaviour and to strengthen the likelihood of the country that such an attack could not happen again. Due to this the international community could not ignore the attack and also UN Security Council accepts that LeT is involved the attack and lists in the sanctions list as a terrorist group, for keeping peace in the region.
The Pakistan did act against the perperators as little as it was possible. Hafiz Saeed, the head of LeT (renamed itself Jamaat-ud-Dawa) personally briefed and motivate the terror groups, who also trained by Pakistan Army officers as shown by media. According to Pakistan authorities and media Hafiz Saeed is a social and political leader of the Pakistan.
All of us know about the David Coleman Headley, U.S. national of Pakistani origin who, had seven reconnaissance visits to Mumbai for the ISI and LeT, has accepted that a previous attempts by LeT had failed in the same year and also confessed about the involvement of the ISI in planning the connaissance, selecting the targets, training and equipping the attackers.
After India handed over all the evidence of Mumbai attack, on basis of which the Indian Supreme Court sentenced Kasab to death, to Pakistan, the Pakistan is still soughting evidence of the terrorist attack, and at last he had finally arrested some of the junior members of the LeT, one of which was Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, who is the military operations head of LeT, but also he was freed to carry out his business from inside the jail through cell phone or by receiving visitors. Despite serial promises made by Pakistan government and its National Security Adviser Sartaj Aziz to then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2014, that the perpetrators of mumbai attack could be sentenced very soon, they still yet to face justice in Pakistan.
Although we have had successed in dealing with those perpetrators of Mumabi attacks when they travelled out of Pakistan and also those in other countries like, Spain, Itally or elsewhere who helped them with communications and othere equipment.
We have had much greater success dealing with those connected with the attacks when they traveled outside Pakistan, and with those in Spain, Italy, and elsewhere who helped equip them with communications and other equipment.
One of them, Sheikh Abdul Khwaja, a handler of the Mumbai attack and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami operations chief for India, was picked up in Colombo, Sri Lanka and brought to Hyderabad and arrested formally in January 2010, as reported by media. Also Zaibuddin Ansari, after deported from Saudi Arabia, was arrested at the Delhi airport on 25th June, 2012. But there is a big list of perpetrators who was responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, they are still in the radar of the Indian security agency.
The main problem which India faced, was that of organizing the international community for isolating the Pakistan and in making counterterrorism cooperation effective against the LeT. And India finally succeeded in cooperation from Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf countries and China too start responding on the informataion request for the the terror groups.
There was need to strengthen laws and build agency to tackle terrorism within India, therefore to established the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Unlawful Activities Act has been passed unanimously in December 2008 by the then UPA goverment. Latter the government has proposed national counterterrorism center in all the states, but due to the objection from the states, it is still to be created.
The people of India voted to power again to then UPA government in response to the Mumbai attack, which was scheduled to held within few months of the attack in May 2009. For the first time the political parties did not make the Mumbai attack and its response given by Indian governemnt, an issue in the general election.
But when India voted to BJP and Mr. Narendra Modi is elected as 14th Prime Minister of India in 26 May, 2014, the swearing in ceremony of PM Modi had attended by the heads of all SAARC counrty including Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, aiming at better relation with neighbouring country, peace in the region and also the cross border terrorism could be controlled.
It seems to have Pakistan had understand that terrorism can't be sponser within India in the regime of PM Modi. In view of this Pakistan attacked the Uri Army base camp, killing 18 indian soldiers on 18th September, 2016, when all the soldiers were sleeping.
In the wake of Uri attack there was a big anger within India, all were demanding retaliation from PM Modi in response to the killing of 18 soldiers. After a ten days and numbers of meeting, between PM Modi, its cabinet minister,NSA Ajit Doval and all the security agency, the Indian army strikes at the terror camps based in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) in the night of 29 September, 2016. Later in the next day morning Indian Army confirmed the media that we have successfully done surgical strikes on the terror camps based in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
But it seems to have Pakistan don't like friendship, therefore after the surgical strike Pakistan regularly violating the cease fire, killing Indian soldiers day by day...
Why India did not used its force against Pakistan for supporting the terrorist? When I pressed myself back at that time, I asked myself there should have some sort of visible retaliation, either against the LeT in Mudrike, in Pakistan's Punjab province, or terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, or against the ISI, the evidence which was clearly showing the Pakistan involvement in the terror attacks. The government should have gone some way towards erasing the shame of incompetence that Indian Army, Police and security agencies displayed in the world's television glare for the three/four days.
At that time and after the attack, the government had a series of informal discussions and meetings that considered for the India's responses. The then national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, had organized the review of our military and other options with the political leadership, and the military chiefs convey their views to the then Prime Minister. After the review M.K. Narayanan had urged the then external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee and also Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that we should retaliate to deter further attacks, for the international credibility reasons and to relieve public sentiment.
According to the then NSA M.K. Narayanan, Pakistan had crossed a line, so that action demanded against Pakistan more than a normal response by Indian Army. He had preffered to covert action against LeT or terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the sponsers of terrorism, the ISI. The then External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee had seemed to agree with then NSA views and spoked publicly of all our options being open. In that meetings and discussions the government had considered the response options after Mumbai attacks and about the escalation that could occur in the response to the Pakistan.
But I now believe that the government's decision not to retaliate after 26/11 and choosen to concentrate on diplomatic and other means was the right decision for that time...
Why the Government had choosen not to retaliate?
The answer of the query why India decided not retaliate after Mumbai terror attack" is that after considering the India's options at the highest levels of the government, the Indian goverment would have concluded that more can be gained from not retaliating Pakistan than from retaliating it.
Let us consider what might had happened had India attacked Pakistan.
The fact of Pakistan involvement in the Mumbai terror attack would have been difficult to understand. As far as the entire world was concerned, the attack would have seen as just another dispute between the two neighbouring country. India had experienced in 1947 India Pakistan War when India took the aggression of Pakistan in Kashmir in 1947, to the UN Security Council.
There was enough evidence that showed the Pakistan Army involvement in the invasion, but the Security Council of United Nation played politics and treated both the aggressor and victims as same, imposing a immediate cease-fire. The entire world asked both the country to call for peace. The Pakistan itself approached the United States and the United Kingdom asking that India be restrained from launching a war between two nuclear weapon states.
If India would have attack on Pakistan or against only those terrorist groups in Pakistan that attacked on Mumbai, it could have united Pakistan behind their Army, the result of which could had increased domestic disrepute, disagreed on India's policy with the democratic government under President Asif Zardari. It would also have weakened the Pakistan government, which wanted a better relationship with India than the Pakistan Army.
The Pakistan information minister, Sherry Rehman had lost her job under pressure from the army, soon after he had said publicly that Kasab was a Pakistani. In fact the Pakistan had moved mobilized troops to the India-Pakistan border before the attack began, and then talking about the mobilization of India.
Actually the Pakistan army wanted to strengthen its internal position, which had been weakened in the regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf as president, therefore a war scare had been created by Pakistan.
if India had a limited strike on terrorist groups like, the LeT headquarters or the LeT camps in POK would have had limited effect on the organization, like the US had missile strikes on al Qaeda in Khost, Afghanistan, in August 1998 in response to the U.S. embassies bombing in Kenya and Tanzania. The camps of LeT were in the form of tin sheds and huts, that could be easily rebuilt. The LeT camps had been deliberately built near or beside schools and hospitals, so the damage of civilian was almost certain. Even if there were no civilian casualties from the Indian attack, the ISI could be alleged the casualties due to attack.
The terrorist groups in Pakistan like the LeT were receiving huge support of the people of Pakistan and also by the goverment that could not have stopped with limited surgical strike. Also if the India would have attack Pakistan and even a successful war imposed, its costs setback the progress of Indian economy at the time when the world economy was in an unprecedented financial crisis that seemed to lead to another Great Depression in November 2008. So the decision of attack would have really irrelevant.
Lets consider what did happened when India choosen not to attack Pakistan & its terror groups.
India is a responsible country and have strengthen their position in the international community by taking the decision not to attack Pakistan after Mumbai attack, and used all of its efforts, legal & covert means to bringing the perpetrators of the attack to justice, force consequences on Pakistan by uniting the international community for its behaviour and to strengthen the likelihood of the country that such an attack could not happen again. Due to this the international community could not ignore the attack and also UN Security Council accepts that LeT is involved the attack and lists in the sanctions list as a terrorist group, for keeping peace in the region.
The Pakistan did act against the perperators as little as it was possible. Hafiz Saeed, the head of LeT (renamed itself Jamaat-ud-Dawa) personally briefed and motivate the terror groups, who also trained by Pakistan Army officers as shown by media. According to Pakistan authorities and media Hafiz Saeed is a social and political leader of the Pakistan.
All of us know about the David Coleman Headley, U.S. national of Pakistani origin who, had seven reconnaissance visits to Mumbai for the ISI and LeT, has accepted that a previous attempts by LeT had failed in the same year and also confessed about the involvement of the ISI in planning the connaissance, selecting the targets, training and equipping the attackers.
After India handed over all the evidence of Mumbai attack, on basis of which the Indian Supreme Court sentenced Kasab to death, to Pakistan, the Pakistan is still soughting evidence of the terrorist attack, and at last he had finally arrested some of the junior members of the LeT, one of which was Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, who is the military operations head of LeT, but also he was freed to carry out his business from inside the jail through cell phone or by receiving visitors. Despite serial promises made by Pakistan government and its National Security Adviser Sartaj Aziz to then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2014, that the perpetrators of mumbai attack could be sentenced very soon, they still yet to face justice in Pakistan.
Although we have had successed in dealing with those perpetrators of Mumabi attacks when they travelled out of Pakistan and also those in other countries like, Spain, Itally or elsewhere who helped them with communications and othere equipment.
We have had much greater success dealing with those connected with the attacks when they traveled outside Pakistan, and with those in Spain, Italy, and elsewhere who helped equip them with communications and other equipment.
One of them, Sheikh Abdul Khwaja, a handler of the Mumbai attack and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami operations chief for India, was picked up in Colombo, Sri Lanka and brought to Hyderabad and arrested formally in January 2010, as reported by media. Also Zaibuddin Ansari, after deported from Saudi Arabia, was arrested at the Delhi airport on 25th June, 2012. But there is a big list of perpetrators who was responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, they are still in the radar of the Indian security agency.
The main problem which India faced, was that of organizing the international community for isolating the Pakistan and in making counterterrorism cooperation effective against the LeT. And India finally succeeded in cooperation from Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf countries and China too start responding on the informataion request for the the terror groups.
There was need to strengthen laws and build agency to tackle terrorism within India, therefore to established the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Unlawful Activities Act has been passed unanimously in December 2008 by the then UPA goverment. Latter the government has proposed national counterterrorism center in all the states, but due to the objection from the states, it is still to be created.
The people of India voted to power again to then UPA government in response to the Mumbai attack, which was scheduled to held within few months of the attack in May 2009. For the first time the political parties did not make the Mumbai attack and its response given by Indian governemnt, an issue in the general election.
But when India voted to BJP and Mr. Narendra Modi is elected as 14th Prime Minister of India in 26 May, 2014, the swearing in ceremony of PM Modi had attended by the heads of all SAARC counrty including Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, aiming at better relation with neighbouring country, peace in the region and also the cross border terrorism could be controlled.
It seems to have Pakistan had understand that terrorism can't be sponser within India in the regime of PM Modi. In view of this Pakistan attacked the Uri Army base camp, killing 18 indian soldiers on 18th September, 2016, when all the soldiers were sleeping.
In the wake of Uri attack there was a big anger within India, all were demanding retaliation from PM Modi in response to the killing of 18 soldiers. After a ten days and numbers of meeting, between PM Modi, its cabinet minister,NSA Ajit Doval and all the security agency, the Indian army strikes at the terror camps based in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) in the night of 29 September, 2016. Later in the next day morning Indian Army confirmed the media that we have successfully done surgical strikes on the terror camps based in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
But it seems to have Pakistan don't like friendship, therefore after the surgical strike Pakistan regularly violating the cease fire, killing Indian soldiers day by day...
