synopsis

In an old video that has resurfaced on X, formerly Twitter, former US Ambassador to India, David Mulford, praises PM Narendra Modi's decision to launch surgical strikes on Pakistan, adding that, "There's nothing like punching a bully on the nose in a playground to stop him."

Years after India's proactive response to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, where it safeguarded its security interests through 'surgical strikes', an old video of former US Ambassador to India, David Mulford, praising Prime Minister Narendra Modi's decision to confront the issue by likening it to 'punching a bully on the nose to stop him' has gone viral on X, formerly Twitter. The resurfacing of this video on Tuesday ignited a significant reaction among viewers, highlighting the ongoing relevance and impact of past strategic decisions.

Also read: PM Modi inaugurates ambitious Rs 20,000 crore development plan for Tiruchirappalli in Tamil Nadu

In 2016 and 2019, India executed two significant military operations commonly referred to as "surgical strikes" against terrorist launch pads along the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). The first surgical strike occurred in September 2016 as a response to a terrorist attack on an Indian Army base in Uri, which claimed the lives of 19 soldiers. In a well-coordinated and covert operation, special forces from the Indian Army crossed the LoC to neutralize terrorist elements, marking a departure from India's previous strategic restraint. In February 2019, a second set of surgical strikes followed the deadly Pulwama attack, where a suicide bomber targeted a convoy of Indian paramilitary personnel. Once more, India exhibited a proactive approach to counter-terrorism by launching strikes on terrorist infrastructure situated deep within Pakistani territory.

In a compelling speech at the Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy on October 26, 2016, former Ambassador to India, David Mulford, reflected on a critical juncture in India's recent history—the terror attacks that unfolded on the same date in 2005. Mulford vividly recounted the events of that fateful night when he found himself in India, addressing parents at a school outside New Delhi. A phone call interrupted his visit with news of a devastating attack in Sarojini market, claiming the lives of over 60 people and sending shockwaves throughout the country.

"I was in India in 2005, October 26, I think it was. I went to a school outside of New Delhi to give a talk to parents on that evening. I got a phone call that there had been an attack in Sarojini market in New Delhi that night. There were 60 some people killed and a very fiery blast, which exploded other canisters of natural gas and so on. So it was a very desperate situation," Mulford had said.

Delving into intelligence investigations, Mulford revealed that the motivation behind the attacks lay in Pakistan's frustration with their limited success in garnering international attention for their terrorist activities in Kashmir. Seeking to escalate their impact, the planners orchestrated a series of bombings across India, culminating in the infamous 2006 Mumbai train bombings and 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks of 2008.

"We then looked into our intelligence and followed that. We found that the Pakistani motivation was the programmes they had for terrorist activities in Kashmir were not producing enough headlines for the evening news and various other things. So they wanted to have a broader attack that could divide communities and destroy confidence between communities in India and their plan was to attack markets all over India, which they did with crude bombs and various other things. That led up to the railway attacks in Mumbai and that led up to the hotel attacks," Mulford stated.

As the then-Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh grappled with the decision of whether to launch a counterstrike, Mulford explained that the consensus was against it. The rationale stemmed from the belief that such a move would not effectively apprehend the perpetrators, as the terrorist camps were empty. Moreover, the fear of triggering a dangerous escalation, potentially leading to a nuclear confrontation, loomed large.

"At that point, Manmohan Singh's government debated whether or not to counterstrike. But the reasoning was a counter strike won't get the people who did this. The camps are empty now, you won't achieve anything. And if it stimulates the Pakistanis to strike back and then we strike back, won't be long before Pakistan knows it's going to lose and it will reach for the nuclear closet and I was with him on that decision," Mulford highlighted.

Fast forward to 2016, and Mulford expressed a contrasting view on the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Drawing an analogy to dealing with a playground bully, he endorsed Modi's approach, suggesting that sometimes, there's nothing like delivering a punch on the nose to deter further aggression.

"But this time I think Modi was right and once he's done that... there's nothing like punching a bully on the nose in a playground to stop him," the former US Ambassador to India noted.

This resurfaced video has reignited discussions on the complex dynamics surrounding counterterrorism strategies. The juxtaposition of Singh's restraint and Modi's decisive action has sparked a debate on X once again, with most users noting that this is one the reasons why the BJP government must come back into power when the nation goes into polls this year.

Also read: Ayodhya Ram Mandir: The immersive experience of watching Ramayan at Sarayu ghat

"Exactly...that's why we need to bring back this govt in 2024, 2029, 2034 and forever till infinity," said one user on X in response to the viral video. Another added, "Show this to every citizen of India and to the party started by foreigners and owned by Italians."

A third user noted, "Punch the bully right on the face - yeah, that's the way to handle them. Thanks PM Modi for bringing back pride and peace to Bharat."

"The contrast between the two administrations could not be more stark. Manmohan Singh chose to ignore repeated attack fearing that it would escalate to something bigger. Modi, on the other hand, dealt with Pakistan firmly by hitting them on their soil," noted a fourth user on X.