Pulwama Attack Aftermath: India's Response To Pakistan

The Pulwama attack, a dark day in India's history, occurred on February 14, 2019, when a convoy of vehicles carrying Indian security personnel was attacked by a Jaish-e-Mohammed suicide bomber in the Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir. This devastating event, which resulted in the death of over 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel, triggered widespread outrage and calls for retaliation within India. The attack was quickly claimed by Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a Pakistan-based terrorist group, which further heightened tensions between the two neighboring countries. Following the attack, India accused Pakistan of providing support and safe haven to JeM, a charge that Pakistan vehemently denied. This incident brought the already strained relationship between India and Pakistan to a dangerous new low, leading to a series of diplomatic, economic, and military actions by India aimed at demonstrating its resolve and holding Pakistan accountable for its alleged role in fostering terrorism. The Indian government, facing immense public pressure, promised a strong response to the attack. The actions that followed were multifaceted, encompassing diplomatic offensives, economic measures, and, most significantly, a daring military operation. In the aftermath of the Pulwama attack, the Indian government's response was shaped by a complex interplay of domestic political considerations, regional security dynamics, and international pressures. Understanding the specific actions taken by India requires a detailed examination of the events that unfolded in the days and weeks following the attack, as well as the broader context of India-Pakistan relations. The Pulwama attack not only tested India's national security but also its diplomatic and strategic capabilities, forcing the government to make critical decisions that would have far-reaching consequences for the region. The purpose of this discussion is to explain what India did in response to the Pulwama attack.

Diplomatic Isolation Efforts

Following the Pulwama attack, India launched an intensive diplomatic campaign aimed at isolating Pakistan on the international stage. This involved engaging with various countries and international organizations to highlight Pakistan's alleged role in supporting terrorism and to garner support for India's actions. A key element of this strategy was to present evidence linking Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the group that claimed responsibility for the attack, to Pakistan. India shared intelligence and investigative findings with key global powers, including the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom, to demonstrate that JeM was operating from Pakistani soil and receiving support from elements within the country. By providing concrete evidence, India sought to persuade these nations to exert pressure on Pakistan to take action against terrorist groups operating within its borders. In addition to bilateral engagements, India also utilized multilateral forums such as the United Nations (UN) and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to amplify its concerns about Pakistan's role in fostering terrorism. India actively lobbied for Pakistan to be placed on the FATF's blacklist, which would have significant economic consequences for the country. Furthermore, India worked to ensure that the international community recognized JeM as a terrorist organization and took measures to prevent it from operating and raising funds. The diplomatic efforts extended to regional platforms as well, with India seeking support from countries in South Asia and beyond. India emphasized the threat that terrorism posed to regional stability and called on neighboring countries to cooperate in combating terrorism. While these diplomatic efforts did not result in a complete isolation of Pakistan, they did succeed in increasing international awareness of the issue and putting pressure on Pakistan to address concerns about its counter-terrorism efforts. India's diplomatic offensive following the Pulwama attack underscored its commitment to combating terrorism and its determination to hold Pakistan accountable for its alleged support of terrorist groups. The success of these diplomatic efforts can be measured by the increased international scrutiny of Pakistan's counter-terrorism policies and the growing pressure on the country to take concrete action against terrorist organizations operating within its borders. By actively engaging with the international community, India aimed to create a global consensus on the need to address terrorism and to ensure that Pakistan was held responsible for its actions. This strategy reflected India's recognition that addressing terrorism required a multifaceted approach that combined diplomatic, economic, and military measures. The goal was to exert maximum pressure on Pakistan to change its policies and to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Economic Measures

In the wake of the Pulwama attack, India implemented several economic measures aimed at increasing pressure on Pakistan. One of the first actions taken was the revocation of Pakistan's Most Favored Nation (MFN) status. India had granted MFN status to Pakistan in 1996 as part of efforts to normalize trade relations between the two countries. Revoking this status meant that India could impose higher tariffs on goods imported from Pakistan, thereby reducing trade between the two nations. This decision was intended to send a strong signal to Pakistan about the economic consequences of its alleged support for terrorism. In addition to revoking MFN status, India also increased customs duties on goods imported from Pakistan. This further increased the cost of Pakistani products in the Indian market, making them less competitive and reducing the volume of trade. The aim was to inflict economic pain on Pakistan and to discourage its support for terrorist activities. These economic measures were accompanied by calls within India to boycott Pakistani products and to reduce economic ties with Pakistan in various sectors. While the direct economic impact of these measures on Pakistan was limited, given the relatively small volume of trade between the two countries, the symbolic impact was significant. The economic measures sent a clear message that India was willing to use economic tools to exert pressure on Pakistan and to hold it accountable for its actions. Furthermore, the economic measures were intended to complement the diplomatic and military actions taken by India following the Pulwama attack. By combining these different types of measures, India sought to create a comprehensive strategy to address the issue of terrorism and to ensure that Pakistan was held responsible for its alleged role in supporting terrorist groups. The economic measures also reflected a broader shift in India's approach to Pakistan, with a greater emphasis on using all available tools to exert pressure on the country and to protect India's national security interests. The government's decision to take economic action against Pakistan was driven by a combination of factors, including public anger over the Pulwama attack, a desire to demonstrate resolve in the face of terrorism, and a recognition that economic tools could be an effective means of exerting pressure on Pakistan. The economic measures were also intended to send a message to the international community that India was serious about combating terrorism and that it was willing to take concrete steps to hold Pakistan accountable for its actions.

The Balakot Airstrike

The most significant action taken by India following the Pulwama attack was the Balakot airstrike on February 26, 2019. Indian warplanes crossed the Line of Control (LoC) and struck a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) training camp in Balakot, a town located deep inside Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The airstrike was described by India as a pre-emptive action against a potential terrorist attack, with the government claiming that it had credible intelligence that JeM was planning further attacks against India. The decision to conduct the airstrike was a significant escalation in tensions between India and Pakistan and marked the first time since the 1971 war that Indian warplanes had crossed the LoC to strike targets inside Pakistan. The airstrike was carried out in the early hours of the morning, with Indian warplanes reportedly dropping precision-guided bombs on the JeM training camp. The Indian government claimed that the airstrike had resulted in the death of a large number of JeM terrorists and trainers. However, Pakistan disputed these claims, stating that the airstrike had caused only minor damage and that there were no casualties. The Balakot airstrike was widely seen as a demonstration of India's resolve to respond to terrorist attacks and to take action against terrorist groups operating from Pakistani soil. The airstrike was also intended to send a message to Pakistan that India would not tolerate the use of its territory for terrorist activities. The airstrike was met with mixed reactions internationally, with some countries expressing support for India's right to defend itself against terrorism, while others called for restraint and de-escalation. The United States, for example, issued a statement calling on both India and Pakistan to avoid taking any actions that could further escalate tensions. Following the Balakot airstrike, Pakistan retaliated by sending its own warplanes across the LoC to target Indian military installations. However, these attempts were reportedly thwarted by Indian air defenses. In the ensuing aerial engagement, an Indian MiG-21 fighter jet was shot down, and its pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, was captured by Pakistan. Varthaman was later released by Pakistan as a gesture of peace. The Balakot airstrike and the subsequent events brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war, with both countries deploying troops along the border and engaging in heated rhetoric. However, diplomatic efforts by various countries helped to de-escalate the situation and prevent a full-scale conflict. The Balakot airstrike remains a contentious issue in India-Pakistan relations, with both countries offering different accounts of what happened and its impact. However, the airstrike undoubtedly marked a significant turning point in the relationship between the two countries and demonstrated India's willingness to use military force to address the threat of terrorism.

Suspension of Trade and Cultural Exchanges

Following the Pulwama attack and the subsequent Balakot airstrike, India took additional steps to further isolate Pakistan, including the suspension of trade and cultural exchanges. These measures were aimed at reducing interactions between the two countries and sending a strong message of disapproval to Pakistan. India had already revoked Pakistan's Most Favored Nation (MFN) status and increased customs duties on Pakistani goods, but the suspension of trade went a step further by effectively halting most commercial transactions between the two countries. This decision had a significant impact on businesses and traders on both sides of the border, particularly those involved in cross-border trade. In addition to suspending trade, India also took steps to curtail cultural exchanges with Pakistan. This included canceling or postponing cultural events, performances, and collaborations involving artists, musicians, and other cultural figures from both countries. The aim was to limit interactions between the people of India and Pakistan and to reduce opportunities for cultural exchange and dialogue. These measures were controversial, with some arguing that they were counterproductive and that they would only serve to further alienate the people of Pakistan. Others argued that they were necessary to send a strong message to the Pakistani government and to demonstrate India's resolve in the face of terrorism. The suspension of trade and cultural exchanges reflected a broader trend in India-Pakistan relations, with a growing emphasis on separation and disengagement. This trend has been driven by a combination of factors, including persistent tensions over terrorism, unresolved territorial disputes, and a lack of trust between the two countries. The decision to suspend trade and cultural exchanges was also influenced by domestic political considerations in India, with the government facing pressure to take strong action against Pakistan in the wake of the Pulwama attack. The government's actions were widely supported by the Indian public, which was outraged by the attack and demanded a strong response. However, some analysts warned that the suspension of trade and cultural exchanges could have unintended consequences, such as fueling resentment and animosity on both sides of the border. They argued that it was important to maintain channels of communication and dialogue between India and Pakistan, even in times of crisis, to prevent misunderstandings and to promote peaceful resolution of disputes. Despite these concerns, the Indian government remained firm in its decision to suspend trade and cultural exchanges with Pakistan, viewing these measures as an essential part of its strategy to pressure Pakistan to take action against terrorism. The suspension of these exchanges underscored the deep divisions between the two countries and the challenges involved in building a more peaceful and cooperative relationship.

Increased Security Measures

In response to the Pulwama attack, India significantly increased security measures, particularly in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This involved deploying additional troops, increasing patrols, and implementing stricter security protocols. The aim was to prevent further terrorist attacks and to maintain law and order in the region. The deployment of additional troops was intended to strengthen the security grid and to provide a greater sense of security to the local population. The increased patrols were aimed at detecting and deterring terrorist activity, while the stricter security protocols were designed to prevent the movement of terrorists and weapons. In addition to increasing security measures in Jammu and Kashmir, India also stepped up security at airports, railway stations, and other public places across the country. This was in response to concerns that terrorists might attempt to carry out attacks in other parts of India. The increased security measures were accompanied by a crackdown on suspected terrorist sympathizers and facilitators. This involved arresting individuals suspected of having links to terrorist groups and seizing weapons and explosives. The security measures also included efforts to improve intelligence gathering and coordination among various security agencies. This was aimed at preventing future terrorist attacks by identifying and disrupting terrorist plots before they could be carried out. The increased security measures had a significant impact on daily life in Jammu and Kashmir, with residents facing increased restrictions on their movement and activities. However, the measures were generally supported by the local population, which was concerned about the threat of terrorism and wanted to see the government take action to protect their safety and security. The increased security measures also had an economic impact, with tourism and other economic activities being disrupted by the restrictions on movement and the heightened security environment. However, the government argued that these measures were necessary to maintain law and order and to prevent further terrorist attacks. The increased security measures reflected the government's commitment to combating terrorism and to protecting the lives and property of its citizens. The measures were also intended to send a message to terrorists and their supporters that India would not tolerate acts of terrorism and that it would take all necessary steps to prevent such attacks from happening again. The enhanced security posture also aimed to reassure the international community of India's commitment to regional stability and its resolve to combat cross-border terrorism. These measures, though stringent, underscored India's determination to safeguard its territorial integrity and protect its citizens from the scourge of terrorism.