But that's the point being made by the anchor - that India did not have legal justification for the Balakot strikes, especially if, as it appears, India has never made an attempt to actually engage Pakistan in preempting strikes that India had information on. Even the US obtained UN authorization for the invasion of Afghanistan, and was severely criticized for its invasion of Iraq without UN authorization.
You can't argue that Pakistan would not have assisted in preempting the strikes when India never engaged Pakistan on the issue. Secondly, there are plenty of residents around that area as well as Madrassa students (some of whom might be militants but you can't guarantee that they were all militants) - merely pointing out the presence of '300 distinct SIM cards' suggests nothing other than that 300 residents of the village and madrassa had cell phones.
You are perfectly right in asserting that the UN did not take cognisance of the present instance and that Pakistan was not engaged in seeking pre-emptive strikes. An Indian response might be - it is not necessarily mine, as I differ substantially from the way the present government is conducting itself, and the context within which its conduct is framed - that having failed to obtain action post facto, what could be the possibility of obtaining action a priori? I had pointed this out; you may be right in saying that the UN should have validated this, but there too, China has steadfastly refused even the first step in a war on terror by shielding major perpetrators. So what options did India have with the UN?
Preemption is different from investigations after an attack. Typically the perpetrators involved in attacks (Such as Mumbai or Uri) die during the attacks or are arrested (Kasab in the case of the Mumbai attacks). With respect to LeT, I'd argue that Pakistan's containment of LeT has been effective given that LeT has not carried out any attacks since the Mumbai attacks.
Is it seriously your argument that containment is sufficient, and nothing further needs to be done, certainly not in respect of the planners, guides and sources of motivation, and far from addressing the state agencies who were the true inspiration?
So Hafiz Saeed is 'contained' and that allows for hands to be washed and consciences cleansed, while other groups, known all along, and brought to prime attention with the containment of the others, continue to murder and to maim?
It is an interesting proposition.
Even the attacks that the LeT was alleged to have been plotting (embassies in Bangladesh) did not come to fruition, either because the allegations were suspect or because the warning allowed Pakistan to take action that prevented LeT from moving forward with those plans.
Indeed, both are possible, and the implication would then be that action is proven by non-occurrence, rather than by evidence.
So when it comes to preemption, which is India's official justification for the Balakot attacks, I would argue that Pakistan has not demonstrated behavior that would preclude India engaging with her on preempting terrorist attacks.
Subsequent to Mumbai, there was the attack on Parliament, the attack on the Army camp by Fedayeen, and the attack on our airbase. In one case, the Pakistani agencies were actually given a detailed guided tour of a highly sensitive location. It seems to be that whatever is done by India, Pakistan discovers a further boundary that is found to be the true boundary for agreement on mutual action, until that new boundary is itself reached. Rather on the lines of Herakles and the tortoise.
It is difficult for ordinary Indians (for instance, me) to take seriously assertions by Pakistan that all these attacks took place with no involvement by the Pakistan authorities, even as the initial insertion of every single individual from the other side is usually covered by brisk firing by Pakistani border guards. Even as evidence has been provided in ample measure, and either deflected or denied, or even suffered the indignity of being taken to court and roundly dismissed by the judges as unworthy of further action, in the absence of any effort by the Pakistani prosecution to make even a cursory effort at confirming or supporting the evidence.
India has had her fingers burnt on numerous occasions. The case of 26/11 did not move forward and its perpetrators roam free. India took the unprecedented step of allowing Pak investigators into a military camp in Uri. Again, no traction. While I am anti Modi and Modi might have had some domestic compulsions which resulted in this decision. I am glad he did it. Someone needed to do it. I understand Pak's domestic compulsions also demanded a response and Pak responded. But the point was made - another crisis and India will do the same. And they will deal with the inadvertent Pak response. I am assuming this would make the likes of JeM and LeT reconsider their options.
I agree with this position substantially.
Even as an opponent of Modi, the very fact that there is now a possibility of military retaliation or of pre-emptive action will serve to inform the rulers (not the hapless PM) that this is no longer an open and shut matter.
These columns are full of the most gratifying news. One fanboy after another has been in jubilation at the significantly increased aerial activity; several airbases have been mentioned in particular. Another informs us of the suffering of the guards along the LOC due to Indian artillery shelling. A third is convinced that Trafalgar has been fought once again, and won once again; all due to the sighting of a submarine periscope.
It is to be hoped that the situation will significantly correct itself as reality bites home, and as fuel and ammunition stocks steadily diminish. We are, after all, dealing with the context of denial of a $3.2 billion oil credit facility. If the sub-continent is lucky, this violent reaction to a violent reaction will come to nothing; a consummation devoutly to be wished.
