Maybe the word pre-emptive needs to be explained in the context of the Pakistani-Indian conflict. When Pakistan has already been guilty of several cross border attacks, what is pre-emptive response? The word was coined when the US invaded Iraq as a measure to prevent Iraq from invading US, even though Iraq had not invaded US. That does not apply to the situation between India and Pakistan. Pakistan has deliberately followed an unprovoked aggression policy towards India ever since it became a separate country.

Pakistan and India do not suffer from the same terrorism. The Taliban attack Pakistani targets while the Jaish-e-Muhammed and Lakshar-e-Toiba attack only Indians. The latter groups were built by ISI and have active support in the Pakistani population. The government of Pakistan lies through it's teeth to protect it's terrorists. For example, it has cordoned off the village of the captured terrorists in Mumbai and whisked away his parents. Even though Pakistan is a victim of terrorism, the government and the public takes great pleasure in attacks against India.

It would be appropriate to say: India's rogue neighborhood.

All surrounding states are failed/almost failing and crucibles of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism or dictatorship. Exception being Bhutan, of course.

The worst part is that all those perpetrators/supporters/sympathisers of terrorism are imensely suffering themselves. Just look at the state of all those countries: it is sufficient to evoke a sense of deep sympathy towards those unfortunate people in the hearts of the rest of the civilized world. Poor they.

If they do not stand up against their own rogue governments, they will continue to suffer till perpetuity.

But India will be able to defend itself well and will continue to progress on its path of economic superpowerdom and get a high status in geopolitical arena.