Prof D Mukherjee
India has long followed a non-aggressive, defensive military policy rooted in its civilizational ethos of peace and tolerance, even amid persistent threats-especially from Pakistan. This policy brief evaluates India’s right to self-defence against repeated provocations, emphasizing the steep economic costs and minimal gains of full-scale war. India has faced four conventional wars and numerous terrorist attacks, mostly state-sponsored by Pakistan, forcing a gradual shift in its security doctrine. The most recent provocation occurred on April 22, 2025, in Pulwama, South Kashmir, where a brutal terrorist attack claimed the lives of innocent Hindu tourists. This atrocity, religiously targeted, mirrored the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, underscoring a deliberate attempt to kill individuals based on identity-constituting both a sovereignty violation and a crime against humanity. The nation responded with mourning and resolve, drawing international condemnation. Given this sustained hostility, the paper proposes a multi-layered framework focusing on pre-emptive, proportionate, and policy-guided responses. It balances national security with economic stability and post-conflict recovery planning. India’s growing global role and repeated targeting necessitate a shift from reactive to proactive defence strategies, ensuring long-term security without compromising its foundational values or economic progress.
India has consistently followed a defensive approach, despite enduring over a millennium of invasions-from early Islamic conquests to colonial rule. In the modern era, India was drawn into wars by Pakistan in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999, each time responding only after provocation. Since the late 1980s, Pakistan’s strategy has shifted toward state-sponsored terrorism, supporting separatist and jihadi groups across Jammu & Kashmir and beyond. India has suffered major attacks, including Mumbai (2008), Uri (2016), Pulwama (2019), and most recently, the brutal Pulwama massacre on April 22, 2025. These assaults have claimed countless lives and underscored Pakistan’s continued hostility. Yet, India has consistently opted for restraint, pursuing diplomacy over disproportionate retaliation. This measured approach has enhanced India’s global standing, reinforcing its image as a responsible power. However, India’s tolerance must not be misread as weakness. The nation has withstood repeated aggression since partition and continues to adapt its security posture to evolving threats. The latest Pulwama attack, marked by its targeted religious violence, exemplifies the depth of the threat. As aggression escalates, India’s response must balance strategic restraint with preparedness, ensuring national security while upholding its principles and strengthening global alliances.
India has the right to act in self-defence against terrorism and its sponsors, in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter. Its evolving strategic doctrine emphasizes precise, proportionate responses, especially when credible intelligence confirms state involvement-such as in the 2019 Balakot airstrike. These actions target terror infrastructure and do not constitute acts of war. Given Pakistan’s ongoing support for cross-border terrorism and failure to dismantle networks operating from its territory, India is compelled to defend its citizens and sovereignty. The April 2025 Pulwama massacre further highlights the need for a firm and lawful response. Global powers, including the U.S. and France, have recognized India’s right to protect itself. The international community increasingly acknowledges India’s security challenges and supports its right to act within the framework of international law. Comparisons with Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack underscore a broader consensus: self-defence against terror is legitimate. India must institutionalize a rules-based response mechanism that clearly distinguishes between war and targeted counter-terror operations, reinforcing its commitment to responsible defence while ensuring national security.
A full-scale war between India and Pakistan would result in severe economic losses for both, with Pakistan bearing disproportionately greater damage. Key impacts include complete trade disruption-both bilateral and via indirect international routes-and a sharp collapse in tourism, especially in sensitive regions like Kashmir and Punjab. War would damage infrastructure such as transport, energy, and communication networks, triggering long-term recovery costs. Military spending would surge, diverting resources from vital sectors like healthcare and education. Disrupted supply chains could fuel inflation, strain public finances, and slow GDP growth. Additionally, any escalation involving civilian harm or border violations risks international sanctions, particularly against Pakistan.While conflict may temporarily boost domestic defence production and job creation, and even ignite patriotic unity and indigenous manufacturing, these benefits are neither sustainable nor comparable to the human and economic toll. The long-term consequences far outweigh any short-term gains, reinforcing the need for a security strategy that avoids full-scale conflict while safeguarding national interests.
In the event of a full-scale war, India must implement a robust post-war reconstruction and economic resilience strategy to stabilize conflict-affected regions and sustain long-term growth. This framework should balance immediate recovery with strategic development to ensure continued economic momentum.A rapid rehabilitation plan is essential, focusing on rebuilding damaged infrastructure-roads, railways, power grids, and communication systems-through a dedicated Emergency Infrastructure Rebuilding Fund (EIRF), supported by public-private partnerships. Restoring investor confidence is equally critical. India must coordinate with global allies to prevent capital flight and offer targeted tax incentives and policy support to revive sectors like manufacturing, logistics, and tourism. A National Civilian and Veteran Rehabilitation Authority should oversee medical aid, education, and re-skilling for affected civilians and military personnel. Simultaneously, the post-war phase should accelerate investment in cybersecurity, AI, and indigenous defence technologies, aligning with the Atmanirbhar Bharat vision.Collaboration with international partners is vital for rebuilding and preventing radicalization in vulnerable areas. This integrated strategy will not only address humanitarian and economic challenges but also reinforce India’s long-term resilience, ensuring it emerges stronger, more secure, and self-reliant.
India’s top most priority should be national security and strategic resilience . In light of persistent cross-border terrorism and the growing complexity of geopolitical threats, India must adopt a proactive, multi-dimensional policy framework that reinforces national security, economic stability, and international credibility.India should institutionalize a doctrine focused on pre-emptive counter-terrorism operations that align with global norms. Enhancing surveillance and intelligence capabilities through artificial intelligence and satellite-based technologies will significantly improve threat detection and response effectiveness.A Conflict Contingency Fund should be established under the Ministry of Finance to enable rapid fiscal responses during crises. Simultaneously, India must diversify its export markets and reduce dependence on vulnerable trade routes to cushion the economy from wartime disruptions.Strengthening strategic ties with key partners like the U.S., France, Israel, and ASEAN is essential for technological collaboration, intelligence sharing, and post-conflict support. India must also intensify its efforts in multilateral platforms to isolate and expose terror-sponsoring states. The creation of a National Communication Task Force is crucial for countering misinformation and maintaining public morale during times of conflict or crisis. India always upholds her ‘No First Use’ nuclear policy while reinforcing a credible second-strike capability to maintain strategic deterrence without escalating tensions.
India’s foreign policy is distinguished by its strategic autonomy, enabling it to navigate global affairs independently, while Pakistan’s foreign policy is often characterized by dependence on external powers. This contrast has significant implications for their respective geopolitical standings and international relations.India has consistently pursued a policy of non-alignment and strategic autonomy, allowing it to engage with multiple global powers without being tethered to any single alliance. This approach is evident in India’s participation in diverse international groupings such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, while simultaneously maintaining strong defence and energy ties with Russia. India’s “Act East” policy further exemplifies its commitment to strengthening relations with Southeast Asian nations, enhancing its role in the Indo-Pacific region.India’s emphasis on self-reliance is encapsulated in the “Aatmanirbhar Bharat” initiative, which aims to bolster domestic capabilities across various sectors, including defence, technology, and manufacturing. This initiative not only reduces dependency on foreign entities but also enhances India’s ability to make sovereign decisions in its national interest.
In contrast, Pakistan’s foreign policy has often been influenced by its reliance on external powers, notably China and the United States. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative, has led to significant Chinese investments in Pakistan’s infrastructure. While these investments aim to stimulate economic growth, they have also resulted in substantial debt obligations, raising concerns about Pakistan’s economic sovereignty.Pakistan’s military and strategic alignment with China further underscores its dependency. China has become Pakistan’s largest arms supplier, accounting for a significant portion of its military imports. This deepening military cooperation, while enhancing Pakistan’s defence capabilities, also ties its strategic decisions closely to Chinese interests.
India’s strategic autonomy allows it to engage constructively on the global stage, balancing relationships with major powers while safeguarding its national interests. This independent approach enhances India’s credibility and influence in international affairs.Conversely, Pakistan’s foreign policy, shaped by external dependencies, limits its strategic flexibility and often aligns its national interests with those of its benefactors. This reliance can constrain Pakistan’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy and may impact its long-term sovereignty. India’s commitment to strategic autonomy positions it as a resilient and influential global actor, whereas Pakistan’s dependent foreign policy underscores the challenges of maintaining sovereignty amid external influences.India’s actions in response to terrorism are rooted in self-defence, not aggression.
(The author is an educationist, a management scientist and an independent researcher)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
