Revenge or Restraint? How Congress and BJP Responded to India’s Deadliest Terror Attacks

Terrorism has cast a long shadow over India's post-independence history, with civilian populations, security personnel, and critical infrastructure often falling victim to calculated, high-profile attacks. While the root causes of terrorism are many—ranging from cross-border infiltration to homegrown extremism—what matters most to the public is how effectively their government responds.

Between 2004 and 2025, India witnessed some of the deadliest terrorist attacks in its modern history. These included both domestic and cross-border incidents, ranging from the 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11) under the Congress-led UPA to the Pulwama attack in 2019 and the Pahalgam massacre in 2025 under the BJP-led NDA. This blog critically examines the responses of both Congress (INC) and BJP governments to such attacks, and assesses which party handled retaliation and national security more assertively.

🟠 BJP (2014–2025): Military Retaliation and Strategic Messaging

🔺 Notable Attacks:

• 2016 Uri attack

• 2019 Pulwama suicide bombing

• 2024–25 attacks on pilgrims and tourists in Jammu & Kashmir

✅ Retaliatory Actions:

1. Surgical Strikes (2016)

In response to the Uri attack that killed 19 Indian soldiers, the Indian Army conducted surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC), targeting terror launch pads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). This marked the first officially acknowledged cross-border military retaliation in modern India.

2. Balakot Air Strike (2019)

After 40 CRPF personnel were killed in the Pulwama suicide bombing, India launched an airstrike on Balakot, deep inside Pakistan. This was the first time Indian jets crossed the LoC since the 1971 war, targeting Jaish-e-Mohammed camps. The incident escalated tensions, leading to an aerial dogfight, but also reinforced India's image as a nation that would no longer follow a policy of "strategic restraint."

3. Post-2024/25 Attacks Response

In response to recent attacks on Hindu pilgrims and tourists, India reportedly ramped up intelligence-led neutralizations, drone surveillance, and covert operations in Kashmir. Though exact details remain classified, the response has been aggressive and swift.

✅ Achievements:

• Assertive, public military responses

• Shifted India's doctrine from restraint to retaliation

• Increased public and military morale

• Enhanced global perception of India’s willingness to defend its sovereignty

❌ Criticism:

• Balakot's actual damage remains debated internationally

• Risked escalation into full-scale war

• Did not eliminate terror threats long-term, especially in Kashmir

🔵 Congress (2004–2014): Diplomacy and Internal Security Reforms

🔺 Notable Attacks:

• 2005 Delhi bombings

• 2006 Mumbai train blasts

• 2007 Samjhauta Express

• 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11)

🔻 Response & Retaliation:

The Congress government, particularly after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, adopted a strategy of international diplomacy and internal strengthening. It focused on building legal and investigative frameworks rather than military action.

1. Diplomatic Offensive Post-26/11

India rallied international support to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, and succeeded in getting Lashkar-e-Taiba banned by the UN. This helped bring global pressure on Pakistan’s security establishment.

2. Institutional Reforms

• Creation of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2009

• Reforms in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)

• Focus on counter-terror intelligence, especially in urban areas

✅ Achievements:

• Strengthened India’s long-term counter-terror legal framework

• Garnered widespread international sympathy and cooperation

• Maintained regional stability and avoided war

❌ Criticism:

• No visible military retaliation even after 26/11

• Public viewed the government as soft on terror

• Trials and justice for terror victims were slow and inconsistent

🧾 Comparative Summary

From 2004 to 2014, Congress focused on diplomatic and legal responses, creating institutions like NIA and strengthening UAPA, but faced criticism for not retaliating militarily. Their approach was seen as “strategic restraint.”In contrast, from 2014 to 2025, the BJP adopted military and covert responses, including the Uri surgical strike and Balakot airstrike, with strong public support. They introduced reforms like CDS, Agnipath, and drone warfare, promoting a narrative of “decisive retaliation.” While both gained global backing, terrorism continued under both, with BJP achieving more visible tactical results.

🧠 Conclusion: Who Responded Better?

It depends on how we define success:

• If success means public and military retaliation, the BJP-led government was more assertive and symbolically impactful with surgical strikes and airstrikes.

• If success means long-term legal and diplomatic groundwork, the Congress-led government laid a strong internal foundation (e.g., NIA, UAPA), but failed to deliver a retaliatory message.

That said, neither party has fully eliminated terrorism from Indian soil. While BJP redefined India’s military posture, the enduring threat in Kashmir and beyond reminds us that the fight against terror is ongoing — and complex.

📌 Final Thoughts:

In national security, there's no perfect response. Each approach—whether military or diplomatic—has its strengths and consequences. What matters most is consistency, intelligence, and clarity of doctrine. While both parties faced challenges, the BJP-led government has shown greater assertiveness and effectiveness in responding to terror attacks with decisive retaliation. India today needs a strategy that balances this military strength with long-term peace-building—something that should transcend party lines for the nation's security and stability.