Critics of the alleged 'unknown gunman' strategy warn that engaging in extra-judicial killings carries profound risks that could destabilize the region and undermine India’s international standing. By bypassing established legal and diplomatic frameworks, such operations may invite retaliatory actions, potentially escalating a volatile situation into a broader conflict. Skeptics argue that while the desire to eliminate threats is understandable, the long-term consequences of operating outside international law can be severe, potentially alienating key allies and complicating India's diplomatic efforts on the global stage.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of transparency and accountability inherent in such covert operations. When a state is accused of conducting assassinations on foreign soil, it risks being labeled as a rogue actor, which can damage its reputation as a responsible global power. Critics point out that recent accusations from countries like Canada and the United States regarding similar incidents suggest a pattern that could lead to diplomatic isolation or strained relations with strategic partners who prioritize the rule of law and human rights.
Furthermore, the reliance on covert violence may not address the root causes of the conflict. Instead of fostering a sustainable peace, such actions might embolden extremist elements, provide fodder for propaganda, and deepen the cycle of violence. From this perspective, the focus should remain on strengthening international cooperation, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic pressure to ensure that justice is served through legitimate, transparent, and internationally recognized processes rather than through clandestine operations that invite instability.