There was an element of Bushism in the resolution adopted by the Union Cabinet which met just five hours after the attack on Parliament, including the Texan brag in the choice of words: "We will liquidate the terrorists and their sponsors, wherever they are and whoever they are." Now all India has to do is walk the big talk as the US president has done in Afghanistan.

Cover Story V. P. Malik Former chief of army staff ACT, DON'T REACT The attack on Parliament calls for a reassessment of our security environment in a holistic manner. It cannot be left to one instrument, be it the Home Ministry or the army. You have to keep all options open. The option of striking at terrorist camps across the LoC has to be well thought out and planned. You have to collect intelligence and study the implications. The right opportunities have to be created. There has been too much passivity in our assessment of the security environment. In military terms, there has to be deterrence and dissuasion. Reactive policies do not pay. Rather they spoil the security environment. The post-Parliament attack strategy has to synergise all instruments of the state for anti-terrorism action. G. Parthasarathy Former high commissioner to Pakistan MIDDLE PATH First we'll have to ascertain the groups involved. If these groups are operating from a neighbouring country and that Government cannot control them, then India should take action under UN Security Council resolution 1373 that mandates enforceability. Pakistan realises that we are paralysed by the fear of escalation. General V.P. Malik, former army chief, has talked about the strategic space between a low intensity conflict and a nuclear war. It is this space India needs to look at. The Indian state was challenged at the Red Fort and now terrorists have struck at the heart of the country. The attack on Parliament is a challenge to India's sovereignty and its ability to govern. Our response shouldn't convey an impression of weakness.

It was the statement "wherever they are" that was going to be the crimson test for what a senior Defence Ministry official describes as the new "hammer and tongs" Indian approach towards terrorists. For if evidence mounted that it was Pakistan-backed militants who were behind the crime, the giant question was whether India would swing the proverbial hammer across to what even Benazir Bhutto now terms as Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. That, of course, would mean war. Even if India may want to limit its attack to training camps of militants located on the other side of the Line of Control (LoC).

India initially seems to have opted for "cold pursuit"-a term derisively used by security experts to describe the country's typically delayed and graded response to such strikes. The matter of crossing the LoC was hotly debated at the Cabinet Committee for Security Affairs (CCS) meeting that preceded the full cabinet meeting. Intelligence agencies which briefed the CCS were against such precipitate action. They believed that part of the objective of the militants' strike was to goad India into a war with Pakistan.

The agencies then successfully argued that this would be playing into the hands of terrorist organisations which are now reeling under the body blow to Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan. The reasoning was that the disintegration of the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan had made terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir, who received funds, arms and moral support from it, feel endangered. Moreover, under international pressure Pakistan was showing signs of cutting off support to such organisations. So if India acted now it would bring the Pakistani establishment and terrorists into an undesirable union for survival.

There were other factors that had to be taken into consideration before taking the battle into Pakistani territory. A limited war may be the objective but things could easily go out of control. As General Shankar Roy Choudhury, former chief of army staff and Rajya Sabha MP, points out, "There is a limit to which the counter terrorist operations can be intensified. The Government will have to understand that this could lead to horizontal escalation and a full-blown conventional conflict." The overarching worry is that in an act of desperation Pakistan may want to turn it into a nuclear war. Something that makes the US extremely concerned, making it constantly advise India to exercise restraint while planning hostilities against Pakistan.

Cover Story KAPIL KAK Retd air vice-marshal and dy director, IDSA RAISE THE STAKES This attack doesn't come as a surprise. There have been enough intelligence inputs over the past weeks to suggest that Parliament was a target for attack. We are living in an era not of uncertainty but of inconceivability; if airliners can be used as weapons, then a five-man suicide strike is chicken feed. Nothing can be ruled out, not even a terrorist strike against our nuclear installations. Politically and militarily, a cross-border strike is an unwise decision and can be regarded as macho immaturity. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear- weapon states and we cannot afford to play around with nuclear thresholds. There are sufficient instruments available within the regimes of restraint. For example, we could conduct operations with special forces to increase the costs to Pakistan of fighting a proxy war. J.G. NADKARNI Former navy chief DON'T BE RAMBO The strikes were audacious no doubt, but the fact that they could not penetrate the inner sanctum was commendable. The task before us now is to increase our internal security and hunt down the terrorists. Air strikes by the US and Israel are Rambo-ish options, but let's not get carried away. All you can hope to do is hit a few terrorist camps. Even if these are destroyed, the problem of terrorism won't go away and could land us in a war we can't afford. While a strike across the border can lift the national ego, the disadvantages outweigh its benefits-for starters, this is just what Pakistan wants us to do, to paint us as the aggressors. Secondly, I'm convinced that this attack is one of the last gasps of terrorism. After September 11, terrorists won't find it easy to get state sponsorship without which they cannot last very long.

The CCS, therefore, used the Bush ploy of "either you bring them to justice or justice will be brought to them". Pakistan was told firmly that it would have to curb all activities of the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, which India says are based in Pakistan, arrest their leaders and cut off all funds.

Meanwhile, security forces were asked to do everything short of crossing the LoC to crush terrorism. A.K. Suri, Jammu and Kashmir police chief, says, "Inflicting maximum damage on militants and cutting our losses will be the centrepiece of our counter-militancy strategy." The army may still try to inflict damage to militants holed up across the border by using precision artillery strikes with laser-guided shells that may need air support for identifying the targets.

Yet as the past years have demonstrated these haven't lowered the intensity of militancy in Kashmir. This year alone over 2,000 militants have been killed and the security forces have lost 100 men. Despite the high losses, militants have not been deterred from mounting daring attacks, including one on the J&K Assembly on October 1. As Suri points out, "Militancy continues to be on an upswing, and infiltration is high. It's time for the country to define the threshold. How long can we take this nonsense exported from across the border?"

It is a question the Government will have to address sooner rather than later. The common refrain echoed in former foreign secretary J.N. Dixit's words: "Just look at how Israel reacts. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem in our nature to act." In the past decade despite grave provocations India has shied away from taking the battle to Pakistan. In 1993, when militants laid siege to the Charar-e-Sharif shrine in the Valley, the army and the Foreign Ministry had recommended strikes at camps across the border. But the P.V. Narasimha Rao government demurred stating that the country was passing through a grave financial crisis and a communal one with the fall of the Babri Masjid the previous year.

Now tough action will find favour. There is international support for action against terrorism. India's unstinted support to the US in Afghanistan and its growing closeness to the superpower means that America could be made to see India's reason. The military, which has been on high alert after Kargil and September 11, now has enough troops on the border to launch a war if needed. There is likely to be domestic support for stern measures. Politically too with a crucial state election in Uttar Pradesh due, it may suit the BJP-led Government to go in for the hard option. If Pakistan doesn't react to the demands, India may finally be forced to act.

-with Ramesh Vinayak and Sandeep Unnithan