Anxiety and prudence: Decoding India’s delicate balance post-Delhi blast

By Dr. Manoj Kumar Mishra* 

India has faced a difficult strategic moment after the November 10 explosions in Delhi, which occurred barely six months after the launch of ‘Operation Sindoor’. Conceived as a long-term counterterrorism strategy, the operation was projected as a decisive response to cross-border terrorism. 

Yet the attacks in a densely populated part of the national capital, allegedly executed by a network of trained professionals, exposed the limits of relying primarily on retaliatory operations while intelligence and policing mechanisms remained inadequate. The political challenge of managing public anger was equally significant, given that Assembly elections in Bihar and bypolls in several states were underway. The episode also unfolded at a time when India-US relations were slowly recovering after the steep downturn triggered by tensions surrounding Operation Sindoor.

The Delhi blasts underscored how narratives of operational success had overshadowed the long-term need to invest in intelligence, surveillance, and preventive mechanisms. The alleged involvement of Indian professionals linked to the Indian Association of Universities, which later suspended Al Falah University, and their ability to plan over time and accumulate large quantities of explosives, reflect significant institutional lapses. 

These developments also highlight deeper systemic weaknesses, including the inability of intelligence agencies to sustain effective civilian networks in Kashmir that could provide early warnings about emerging threats.

In responding to the incident, India adopted a noticeably cautious approach. The government avoided publicly naming Pakistan or attributing the attack to cross-border terrorism. This marked a departure from the doctrine articulated after the Pahalgam tragedy, which held that any act of terrorism on Indian soil would be treated as an act of war with implicit Pakistani involvement. Several factors likely shaped this restraint. 

Relations with the United States had already been strained by Washington’s engagement with Pakistan during and after Operation Sindoor. India was compelled to issue multiple clarifications after former President Donald Trump attempted to claim credit for de-escalating India-Pakistan tensions. The tariff disputes between Washington and New Delhi further deepened bilateral strains.

Blaming Pakistan for the Delhi attack could also have created pressure for a forceful retaliatory response at a time when the readiness of Indian armed forces for renewed escalation may have been uncertain. 

Acknowledging the incident as cross-border terrorism would have drawn attention to gaps in India’s intelligence capabilities and suggested that the deterrent effect of Operation Sindoor had eroded within months. By treating the incident as an internal security matter, the government sought to manage expectations and reduce pressure on both civilian and military institutions.

India’s restraint received public endorsement from the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio commended New Delhi for its “measured, cautious and very professional” handling of the investigation, noting that the attack involved a vehicle loaded with high-grade explosives and had caused significant loss of life.

However, the fallout of the incident has intensified scrutiny in Kashmir, particularly after reports of the involvement of Kashmiri doctors. Indian media has described this trend as “white-collar terrorism”, a framing that risks deepening mistrust and making daily life more difficult for ordinary Kashmiris. 

Since the dilution of Article 370 in 2019 and the conversion of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory, the region has been subject to tighter administrative and security controls. Overreach in the name of security could alienate residents who are otherwise disengaged from militancy or even sympathetic to the Indian state, creating an environment more vulnerable to radicalisation.

The Delhi blasts have therefore reopened urgent questions about the balance between muscular counterterrorism operations and the quieter, persistent work of building intelligence capacity and public trust. India’s challenge lies not only in responding to acts of terror but in ensuring that its security strategies remain sustainable, credible, and sensitive to the political and social complexities that shape national security outcomes.

---

*Senior Lecturer in Political Science, SVM Autonomous College, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha