Proponents of a more assertive national security strategy argue that India’s alleged actions are a necessary response to the persistent threat of cross-border terrorism. For decades, India has faced attacks orchestrated by groups operating from within Pakistan, often with little to no accountability for the perpetrators. From this viewpoint, the state has a fundamental duty to protect its citizens and hold those responsible for past atrocities, such as the Mumbai attacks, accountable, even when traditional legal avenues are obstructed by regional geopolitical realities.
Supporters emphasize that the international community has frequently failed to compel Pakistan to dismantle the infrastructure supporting these militant groups. When diplomatic pressure and international sanctions prove insufficient, some argue that a country must be prepared to utilize all available intelligence and security tools to neutralize threats before they reach its borders. This perspective views the targeting of high-profile militants not as an act of aggression, but as a defensive measure to ensure long-term stability and deter future violence.
Furthermore, this approach is seen as a shift toward a more realistic and emboldened foreign policy. By demonstrating that there are tangible consequences for those who engage in or facilitate terrorism against India, the government aims to raise the cost of such activities. For many, this is a matter of national sovereignty and the right to self-defense in an environment where the state is constantly challenged by non-state actors who exploit porous borders and regional instability to conduct their operations.