Ajay Sahni Exclusive: Can India afford Balakot 2.0 against Pakistan?

In the latest episode of The Federal's Capital Beat, counterterrorism expert Ajay Sahni joined Neelu Vyas for a sharp and layered discussion on India’s options after the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people. As calls for a military response grow, Sahni explains why patience, strategy, and long-term planning — not just airstrikes or war rhetoric — are critical to shaping India’s security policy.

In this exclusive interview, Sahni said, "We must focus on long-term, strategic moves — not just short-term spectacles."

Neelu Vyas: Ten days have passed since the Pahalgam terror attack, but the security forces are still struggling to capture the perpetrators. Why is that?

Ajay Sahni: The terrain itself is extremely challenging—high mountain passes, dense forests. By the time forces reach one point, militants have relocated. It’s one of the world’s most difficult terrains. Pursuing forces are at a massive disadvantage, and saturation of every area isn’t feasible. However, reports suggest sightings have happened, meaning the militants haven’t left the general area, and there’s a good chance they will eventually be caught or neutralised.

Also read: 'If India attacks Pak, Bangladesh should...' : Yunus' aide issues warning

Vyas: With the geopolitical situation — China warning it will back Pakistan and the US urging restraint — what military options does India have?

Sahni: We need to remember: it’s been 35 years of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, not just 10 days since Pahalgam. While a war is too expensive and unpredictable, even limited strikes will only serve as “theatre” — temporary vengeance, not a solution. Pakistan’s course won’t change from one-off actions. To truly deter Pakistan, India needs to impose unbearable, long-term costs — not just missile strikes or airstrikes, but systematic pressure across all fronts.

Also read: India’s response to Pahalgam attack should avoid regional conflict: JD Vance

Vyas: Leaders like Home Minister Amit Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have used aggressive rhetoric. Should they tone it down? How should the government handle this?

Sahni: Frankly, the language from top leaders shouldn’t sound like street thugs. That’s not statesmanship. The public’s desire for revenge has been fanned by political rhetoric and the media. If the PM says, “We’ll respond in our own way,” people will accept it. But hyping vengeance creates a bloodthirsty atmosphere, locking the government into action. We need strategic, not emotional, responses.

Vyas: You mentioned long-term strategy. What should India’s approach towards Pakistan be?

Sahni: We need a strategy of protracted conflict: understand Pakistan’s weaknesses, exploit vulnerabilities, and apply pressure using all tools — not just military. Take the Indus Waters Treaty, for example. Instead of cutting off water entirely, India can gradually maximise its share. This will have major economic and political impacts in Pakistan. But we must commit to such moves long-term. Historically, India swings between talks and no-talks without sustained penalties on Pakistan.

Also read: US reiterates ‘full support’ for India, calls for ‘responsible resolution’ to Pahalgam attack

Vyas: Why has the government struggled to adopt this long-term approach?

Sahni: It’s a short political attention span. With elections every few months, leaders focus on short-term gains, not 20-year strategies. If you plan for 20 years, you might solve problems in two or three; if you plan for six months, you’ll still struggle a century later.

Vyas: Is dialogue with Pakistan off the table entirely?

Sahni: Political-level talks should be avoided, as they legitimise Pakistan’s leadership. But military-to-military channels, intelligence contacts, and theatre commander talks should continue. We need back channels, but no top-level political cover-ups for Pakistan until it dismantles its terror networks.

Vyas: What about Pakistan’s call for “evidence” and neutral investigations?

Sahni: Pakistan demands evidence but never acts on it. After 26/11, David Headley’s testimony exposed Pakistan’s role, but no action was taken. There’s no neutral authority that can adjudicate these claims; the UN is political, not judicial, and countries like China will block action.

Vyas: Is Kashmir as “normal” as the government claims?

Sahni: Claims of “zero terrorism” are unrealistic. Even in peaceful cities, one attacker can cause mayhem. Yes, fatalities have dropped dramatically since the early 2000s — 4,000 killed in 2001, 127 last year — but as long as Pakistan supports militants, sporadic violence will continue. Security forces likely weren’t consulted fully before the tourism boom, which stretched their capacity.

Vyas: How does today’s government’s handling of terror compare to the UPA era?

Sahni: Contrary to perception, the UPA era saw a massive decline in violence. Under Manmohan Singh, fatalities in J&K fell from around 3,000 to 121 in 2012. This government, despite Article 370’s removal, hasn’t matched those gains. The most effective strategies continue to be those introduced earlier — tight security grids, responsive forces — while communal rhetoric has at times worsened tensions.

Vyas: Finally, what’s your key advice to the government and media now?

Sahni: Revenge is best served cold. We need calm, not bloodlust. We should aim to structurally weaken Pakistan, not score points with flash-in-the-pan strikes. Pakistan has survived horrific attacks on its own people without changing course. We must focus on long-term, strategic moves — not just short-term spectacles.

(The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)