This haunting cycle—where terror strikes first and our response follows—has become a painful pattern etched into the nation’s collective memory. From the devastating Pulwama attack in 2019, where 40 CRPF personnel were martyred, to the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025, India has demonstrated its strength through decisive counter-strikes. Yet, behind every strategic retaliation lies an unbearable truth: we respond only after lives are lost. The question is not about capability—it is about timing. We have the technology, intelligence, and operational strength to detect growing threats, intercept chatter, and identify terror hideouts well before they strike. So why do we wait for bloodshed to validate our action? Why must the cost of our decisions be paid in coffins? National security should not be reactive—it should be preventive. Every time we allow a terror plot to reach execution before dismantling it, we lose precious lives that intelligence could have saved. This is not a failure of bravery but of policy posture. It is time India reimagines its counter-terror strategy—not as a ritual after mourning, but as a shield before the wound is inflicted.
Are We Reacting or Protecting?
Terror hits us. We lose lives. The nation grieves. Then, we retaliate. This cycle, from Pulwama in 2019 to Pahalgam in April 2025, has repeated too many times. While our military might and strategic responses are commendable, the real question haunting every Indian is: Why do we act after the damage is done? Why not act when we already see the danger approaching? This constant pattern of grief and retaliation raises deep questions about our approach to counter-terrorism. We are a nation capable of striking with precision, and our intelligence agencies often track terror movements long before they become active threats. Yet, we wait until innocent lives are lost, until the shock waves of an attack ripple through the country, before we make our move. The question is not about capability, but about the timing of our action. Why do we only strike after the terror attack has claimed lives? It seems counterintuitive, doesn’t it? We see the threat in advance, we know where the enemy is building its strength, but we hesitate until after the tragedy has already unfolded.
We must ask ourselves—are we truly protecting our people, or simply reacting after the damage is done? The loss of lives in attacks like Pulwama and Pahalgam could have been mitigated if action had been taken in a preemptive, protective manner. Instead of waiting until the bloodshed occurs, the time has come to rethink our strategy—to act before the harm reaches us. The patterns of retaliation and reaction after each incident show a broader vulnerability in the way we approach national security. As capable as our military and intelligence agencies are, the need for a proactive defense strategy has never been clearer. Protection means acting when we detect the enemy’s intentions, not when the bullet has already been fired. The truth is, we are not just losing lives in the present, but also sacrificing the chance to act in the future.
The Law Is Clear—But So Is the Threat
The law is clear when it comes to India’s right to defend itself against external aggression. Article 51 of the UN Charter grants every nation the right to self-defense, allowing for retaliatory actions when faced with a direct threat. India, as a sovereign state, operates under this principle, taking necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of its people. But while the legal framework for defending our borders is well-established, the threat we face is becoming increasingly sophisticated and relentless. Terrorism, particularly cross-border terrorism, is a persistent and evolving danger, with enemy camps often set up under the guise of political or military activity. The presence of terror training camps in regions like PoK is well-documented, yet these camps continue to operate with relative impunity.
India’s strategy has often been to wait until the threat has manifested, to strike only after the blood has been shed. But the question must be asked: Shouldn’t we act before the enemy executes their plan? The law allows for self-defense, and in cases where terrorist activities are imminent, it becomes not just a right but a responsibility to act in order to prevent an attack from happening. Every time we wait, terrorists use that time to prepare, regroup, and find new ways to execute their deadly plans. Intelligence agencies are often several steps ahead, tracking movements and uncovering plots before they are launched. And yet, our actions are reactive, taken only after we’ve suffered the consequences. The law does not require us to wait until the enemy strikes. Instead, it empowers us to neutralize threats before they materialize, when the risk is clear, and the evidence is undeniable. India’s legal position on national security is solid, but our approach must evolve to meet the urgency of the threats we face. The law is clear—and so is the threat. It’s time for our strategy to reflect that clarity.
Strategic Silence Can Be Dangerous
Strategic silence, when it comes to national security, can often be seen as a tool of diplomacy, a way to avoid escalation and ensure calculated responses. However, when it comes to terrorism, this silence can prove dangerously counterproductive. Terrorist organizations operate in the shadows, using silence and secrecy as their allies, waiting for the opportune moment to strike. In such a scenario, India’s silence in the face of growing intelligence on terror activities only gives the enemy more time to plan, recruit, and execute their devastating plots. While restraint and caution are valuable in certain diplomatic contexts, strategic silence in counter-terrorism allows the threat to intensify, breeding more violence and more loss of life.
Take the case of Pulwama and the Pahalgam attack in 2025, where despite intelligence inputs and warnings, the silence remained. When we wait too long to act, we give our adversaries room to regroup and strengthen their position. A strategic silence that lingers too long allows terrorism to mature and spread, creating a snowball effect that becomes harder to control. We must ask ourselves: is our silence emboldening those who wish to harm us? In an era where terrorism knows no borders and networks operate in plain sight, waiting for an incident to occur before acting is not a show of restraint—it is a dangerous gamble. Silence in the face of imminent danger is a risk, and by the time we break it, the consequences are often irreversible. What we need is a strategy that uses silence wisely, but also knows when to speak through decisive action. Waiting for terror to strike before we break our silence is no longer an option—every moment of inaction risks more lives.
Why Should We Wait for Coffins to Take Decisions?
The tragic question, “Why should we wait for coffins to take decisions?” underscores the painful reality that terror attacks often spark national debates, but only after lives have been lost. This question goes beyond just the immediate loss of life—it probes a deeper, more troubling issue: Why does it take an attack to prompt us into action? Every time India suffers a terrorist attack—whether it be Pulwama, Pahalgam, or any other incident—we see the same cycle unfold: the loss of innocent lives, the grief of families, the national mourning, and then the retaliatory strikes. The delay between intelligence gathering and decisive action has cost us time, and most tragically, lives. We are in a situation where our responses are reactive, not proactive. This is the most dangerous flaw in our counter-terror strategy.
When intelligence agencies track terror movements, when there is credible information about a potential attack, why do we wait for the first strike to occur before acting? Are we, as a nation, so entrenched in diplomatic restraint and calculated response that we believe only after a tragedy do we have the justification to act? If we have the capability to preemptively act, to dismantle terror cells and neutralize threats before they turn into attacks, why are we hesitant? Waiting for coffins before acting is not a sign of strength or strategic thinking—it is a failure to protect our people. The question shouldn’t be “How can we retaliate after an attack?” but rather, “Why can’t we prevent such attacks before they happen?” The loss of life should never be the catalyst for a decision. Protection must come first, and it should come before the nation is forced to mourn. The time has come for India to shift from a reactive posture to a proactive one—because waiting for coffins to make decisions only prolongs the suffering and risks more lives in the future.
India’s Military Has the Power—We Need the Policy
India’s military strength is unquestionable. Over the years, the nation has demonstrated its formidable capability through surgical strikes, airstrikes, and a strong defensive stance along its borders. From the 2016 surgical strikes to the 2019 Balakot airstrike, the world has seen India’s readiness to act decisively when required. Our armed forces are not just equipped with state-of-the-art weaponry and highly trained personnel, but also with the intelligence networks to gather critical information on terror activities across borders. The power is there, in full force. So, the real question is: why do we seem to hesitate when it comes to preemptive strikes? The issue lies not in the military’s capability but in the policy that governs its use.
India’s military can neutralize threats long before they escalate into full-blown attacks, but this power is often constrained by a lack of clear, proactive policy. The policy of strategic restraint, while important in maintaining diplomatic relations, often puts us on the back foot when it comes to counter-terrorism. Terror networks are evolving and spreading faster than we can respond to, and in such a scenario, hesitation in policy leads to missed opportunities to act before tragedy strikes. We have the tools to strike at terror camps, intercept plans, and dismantle terror cells before they can carry out their missions, but we need a policy framework that enables timely, decisive action.
This is not about military aggression or unchecked force—it is about having a proactive approach where the military is given the green light to act when credible threats are detected. We need a policy that allows the military to act based on intelligence and the clear and present danger posed by terrorist activities. The world doesn’t wait for attacks to happen to neutralize threats, and neither should we. The gap between our military’s power and the policy that governs its use creates a dangerous void where terror continues to thrive. India’s military can act preemptively, but only with a policy that empowers it to do so. Until that happens, we will continue to face the painful question of why we act only after the damage is done. The power exists—what we now need is the policy to unleash it in defense of our citizens.
This Isn’t a Call for War—It’s a Call for Timing
This isn’t a call for war—it’s a call for timing. War, with its devastating consequences, should never be the first resort in any nation’s strategy. But when it comes to counter-terrorism, the delay between intelligence and action is what makes the difference between preventing a tragedy and reacting to it. The point here is not to escalate tensions or engage in unnecessary conflict, but rather to understand that we don’t need to wait for war to respond to threats—we need to act swiftly and strategically before the enemy strikes.
The goal should be to implement a timely response to credible threats, using intelligence, surveillance, and preemptive action to neutralize terror cells and dismantle networks before they can carry out their deadly plans. We do not need to wait for bombs to fall or lives to be lost to justify a military response. The timing of our actions is everything. Terrorists thrive on the element of surprise, operating in secrecy until the moment of attack. Why should we give them that advantage? Why should we wait until innocent lives are lost before we act? In a world where information travels faster than ever and where intelligence can pinpoint exact locations of terror camps, there is no reason why the first strike should be in response to tragedy.
This is not about declaring war on any nation or its people—it is about having the foresight to act on threats as they develop, using military force strategically and with precision to protect our citizens. What we need is a policy that allows us to strike when the threat is clear, not when it has already resulted in lives lost. Terrorism is not a conventional war where battles are fought on the open field—it’s an invisible, shadowy threat that requires us to be proactive and ahead of the curve.
We are not advocating for aggression but for intelligence-led, well-timed action that prevents future attacks. In a world where we can track terror activities across borders and detect rising threats, our military and intelligence agencies should be empowered to act at the first sign of danger, with the speed and precision needed to prevent the loss of life. This is about timing—acting when it counts the most, not when the damage has already been done. The focus should be on stopping the enemy before they strike, not merely avenging attacks after the fact. We owe it to our citizens to protect them in a way that prevents violence, not just responds to it. This isn’t about war—it’s about seizing the right moment to protect our people and secure our nation’s future.
Final Words: It’s Time We Talk Honestly
Final Words: It’s Time We Talk Honestly
The time for sugar-coating and diplomatic restraint is over. Terrorism is not a distant threat—it is here, it is real, and it is evolving faster than ever. The question that every Indian must grapple with is simple: Why are we waiting for the next attack? Why should we endure more grief, loss, and mourning before we act? Our military has the power, our intelligence agencies have the information, but we are still hesitant to act with the speed and decisiveness needed. We need to stop pretending that waiting for attacks to happen is somehow a sign of strength or diplomacy—it is a failure to protect our own.
This isn’t about starting wars or acting recklessly. This is about acting with purpose, with intelligence, and with urgency when we have the tools and information at our disposal. The question isn’t whether we should strike back—it’s why not act when we see the danger coming? The silence and hesitation in the face of rising threats only empower the enemy. It’s time we acknowledge this uncomfortable truth: our current strategy is not enough.
We owe it to the families of those we’ve lost, to every citizen of India, and to the future generations, to have the courage to take decisive action when it’s needed most—not just after the damage is done. The military is ready, and the legal framework is in place. What we need now is a clear, proactive policy that allows us to act swiftly, to neutralize threats before they materialize, and to protect the lives of our people.
It’s time we talk honestly about our national security, and it’s time we adopt a strategy that is proactive, timely, and ultimately protective of our citizens. We don’t need to wait for more coffins. We don’t need to wait for the next tragedy. We just need to act when the danger is clear—and we can stop it before it strikes. The choice is ours.
Disclaimer:
This article reflects the author’s independent opinion on national security timing and follows legal, democratic, and constitutional norms. It does not incite violence or hostility, and all facts referenced are drawn from public sources. The aim is to encourage lawful, preventive, and policy-driven counter-terror strategies in India’s interest.
Leave a Reply