News Desk
The terrorist attack that shook India has once again exposed the grim reality of cross-border violence, demanding a resolute response from the global community. Former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s statement on X, affirming India’s right to strike terrorist infrastructure in response to attacks launched from another country’s soil, is a clarion call for justice.
His assertion that “no nation should have to accept terrorist attacks” and that “there can be no impunity for terrorists” resonates as a moral and strategic necessity. India, a nation repeatedly targeted by terrorism, deserves unwavering support in its efforts to protect its citizens and dismantle the networks that threaten its security.
Sunak’s endorsement of India’s actions—implicitly directed at Pakistan, the long-standing source of such threats—rightly underscores the principle of self-defense. For decades, India has endured attacks orchestrated from across its western border, with militant groups operating under the shadow of Pakistan’s inaction or, worse, tacit complicity.
The 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2019 Pulwama bombing, and countless other atrocities bear the hallmarks of this persistent menace. Pakistan’s failure to rein in these groups, despite international pressure, has left India with little choice but to act decisively. Sunak’s words reflect a clear-eyed recognition of this reality: a sovereign nation cannot be expected to tolerate relentless assaults without retaliation.
Critics may warn of escalation, pointing to the volatile dynamics of South Asia. Yet such concerns must not overshadow the fundamental injustice of holding India hostage to Pakistan’s dysfunction. India has shown remarkable restraint, often pursuing diplomacy and international cooperation to address terrorism.
Its 2019 Balakot airstrike, a targeted operation against a terrorist camp, demonstrated both resolve and precision, minimizing civilian harm while sending a firm message. Pakistan’s response—denial, deflection, and military posturing—only deepened the distrust. To fault India for defending itself is to reward Pakistan’s negligence and embolden those who thrive on chaos.
Sunak’s statement, while firm, could have gone further in calling for global solidarity with India. The fight against terrorism is not India’s alone; it is a shared imperative. Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to dismantle terrorist safe havens demands more than condemnation—it requires concerted international action, from sanctions to diplomatic isolation. India’s efforts, by contrast, deserve not just rhetorical support but tangible assistance, whether through intelligence-sharing, counterterrorism expertise, or strengthened regional alliances.
The human cost of terrorism in India—thousands of lives lost, families shattered, communities scarred—cannot be overstated. Each attack erodes the fabric of a vibrant, pluralistic democracy striving to uplift its people. Supporting India’s right to strike back is not about endorsing endless conflict but about affirming that no nation should live under the specter of violence. Sunak’s words are a step toward that affirmation, a reminder that impunity for terrorists is a betrayal of global security.
As India navigates the aftermath of this latest outrage, the world must stand with it, not in equivocation but in resolve. Pakistan must be held accountable, not with platitudes but with pressure to act against the militants it harbors. India’s pursuit of justice, rooted in restraint and righteousness, is a model for nations facing similar threats. To do anything less than support it is to cede ground to terror itself.
