New Delhi’s decision to steer clear of directly blaming Islamabad for a deadly car bombing in the heart of the Indian capital this month marks a departure from past rhetoric, one that analysts say is due to international fallout from its response to a militant attack earlier this year.
At least 13 people were killed and 20 injured when a slow-moving car exploded outside a metro station near the Red Fort on November 11.
Investigators have called it a “suicide bombing” and linked the suspect – believed to be part of a group of doctors arrested in the case – to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed militant group.
As the National Investigation Agency, mandated to probe terrorism cases, conducts its inquiry, India’s Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi warned that New Delhi will treat “terrorists and their supporters alike”, a remark viewed widely as a signal to Pakistan.
Fuelling tension, a former prime minister of the Pakistani-controlled part of the disputed Kashmir region, Chaudhary Anwarul Haq, this week claimed his country had a direct role in the explosion, while Islamabad has accused India of orchestrating a deadly suicide bombing outside a court in the city a day after the car explosion in New Delhi.
Yet India has remained conspicuously cautious about accusing Pakistan of direct involvement in the Delhi bombing, even though successive governments have for decades accused Islamabad of supporting and funding Muslim militant groups in Kashmir and elsewhere.
The recent attacks have once again brought global attention to the volatile relationship between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Earlier this year, India launched missile strikes on Pakistan after gunmen had killed 24 people in Pahalgam, a resort town in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
The attack in May was initially claimed by a little-known group calling itself the Resistance Front, linked to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group, in a post on Telegram. The post was later deleted and the Resistance Front issued a denial of involvement.
India's response triggered a four-day aerial conflict that ended after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire. Prime Minister Narendra Modi then declared that any act of terrorism on Indian soil would be treated as an act of war.
“Our government has painted itself into a corner with its statement that any act of terrorism will be an act of war against India. They are in trouble,” Ajai Sahni, executive director of the New Delhi-based South Asia Terrorism Portal, told The National. “All this reticence, this evasion, is the consequence of their very unwise statements.”
India-Pakistan ‘see-saw’
Hours before the Delhi blast, Jammu and Kashmir police raided and arrested seven people from Faridabad – a satellite city of Delhi – suspected of links to banned groups Jaish-e-Mohammed and Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind, a branch of ISIS. Police claimed to have recovered nearly 3,000kg of explosives, including 350kg of ammonium nitrate, a fertiliser often used for bomb-making. Among those arrested were several medical doctors from Kashmir.
Control of Kashmir is divided between India and Pakistan, with each claiming sovereignty over the whole region. Since the 1990s, India-controlled Kashmir has faced an armed insurgency that has killed tens of thousands, including civilians.
The New Delhi blast triggered a series of raids and arrests across the region, prompting concerns that a heavy-handed response could deepen alienation.
“The use of force in Kashmir is in abundance at the moment. Surveillance has increased and all of these heavy-handed approaches are not going to yield results in the long term,” said Shanthie Mariet D’Souza, founder and president of the Mantraya Institute for Strategic Studies, based in the south Indian state of Goa.
“You need a long-term approach: look at the factors driving individuals who are well-off, well-educated, to get radicalised; what is causing discontent.”
Mr Sahni said the blast again highlights the fragility of the India–Pakistan equation, a “perpetual see-saw” that has swung unpredictably for 78 years since they gained independence from British rule.
“The Indian government's policy assessment that they deter Pakistan is completely misinformed," he said.
International impact
India’s caution is also shaped by how its response to the Pahalgam attack played out on the global stage.
Mr Trump said he “brokered” the ceasefire – a claim he has since repeated more than 60 times, much to New Delhi’s discomfort, as India has consistently rejected third-party intervention in the Kashmir dispute.
As Indian envoys fanned out across key capitals to manage diplomatic messaging, Mr Trump hosted Pakistan Army Chief Gen Asim Munir for lunch at the White House and praised him for helping to avert an escalation – a development analysts describe as a significant diplomatic setback for New Delhi.
“They paid a price, both in terms of military losses and diplomatic losses and in terms of the exposure of the fact that you are completely friendless,” Mr Sahni said.
"Today, Pakistan is sitting very comfortably in both America’s and China’s hands. The international impact, the diplomatic impact, all that has been extremely negative from an Indian perspective.”
Ms D’Souza said New Delhi "would not want a repeat of what happened, among the lessons learnt from the May hot war".
