THE Pahalgam terrorist attack of April 22 in which 28 tourists were killed, has yet again brought to the fore the fragility of the security readiness in the region.
I have been arguing since long that in order to devise an appropriate response that suits the contours of the current lethal phase of terrorism, it is imperative to examine the tactical, rather ideological variables that led to the transformation of Kashmir terrorism to such a lethal and deadly phase.
The current phase of terrorism, as we have been arguing for the last two years, has altogether different contours from the earlier phases of terrorism. As such, the response has to be matching as per the requirements.
No ideological constraints
First of all, the security managers and policy planners should bear in mind that the current phase of Kashmir terrorism is a much evolved, rather advanced phase, having no ideological constraints, implying that it holds no bar in displaying its lethality. No rules or restrictions are applicable here.
We need to understand that Kashmir terrorism has gradually evolved from localised narrative to Islamisation and ultimately to the global jihadist form. During the earlier phases, we could still paint the picture hypothetically since the terrorism we were used to, had certain limitations, rather shortcomings, which would give some kind of leverage and advantage to the security establishment in devising responses.
The current phase of terrorism, I am afraid, has no such limitations. The kind of terrorism we are witnessing today in Jammu & Kashmir is fast moving ideologically (if not organisationally) towards the global jihadist movement. The jihadists in Pakistan, of late, have realised the impact of the global jihadist movement in terms of its lethality, brutality and potentiality in challenging the status-quo in whatever manifestations.
Presumably there are two things behind such a leaning. One, the resurgence of global jihadists with a banging impact in places like Sirya. Two, failure of the localised form of Islamisation to grab the global attention. Whatever, the reason, the contemporary terrorism in Kashmir, has global manifestations.
The Kashmir terrorism now looms large in the calculus of global security. The risks posed by nuclear escalation, asymmetric warfare, and ideological polarisation are not contained within the subcontinent. The evolution of Kashmir terrorism to the levels of global jihadi movements has made enduring peace between India and Pakistan imperative, not merely desirable, for global stability.
In both the cases, the terrorists operating in Jammu & Kashmir, it seems, are least concerned about the local interests. Which means the handlers in Pakistan are no more under any kind of compulsion to prove the indigeneity of the Kashmr terrorism. Perhaps the Pakistani military establishment, while taking a clue from the global jihadi movements, is just concentrating on the scale and size of the terrorist activities in the region of Jammu & Kashmir. The objective is clearly defined: to shake the confidence of the Indian Army, to create an environment of insecurity, to force New Delhi to respond militarily, raising fears of a broader confrontation between the two countries which ultimately brings Kashmir back on the global discourse.
The writing is on the wall – the current phase of terrorism in Kashmir has no ideological constraints. And with Pakistan stooping to stir chaos in Kashmir at every slight chance, it’s crucial to re-work our own security system and up our act in the corridors of international diplomacy.
A case for Kashmir conflict
Second, the Pahalgam terrorist attack has brought back the Kashmir conflict on the international agenda. The charade is – every condemnation of the Pahalgam terrorist attack or a call for restraint between India and Pakistan post Operation Sindoor, the all-party delegations on diplomatic mission – everything has the Kashmir context. International players sympathising with India or supporting a dialogue between India and Pakistan too have the Kashmir context. The fierce conflict between two nuclear-armed neighbours has triggered widespread international consternation. Even if Pakistan suffered heavily in terms of damage to the terrorist infrastructure in Operation Sindoor or to the military airbases as claimed by the security establishment duly backed by the political narrative, the post-April 22 events have had an adverse impact on the narrative of normality in Kashmir.
A key index of this normality was held to be the return of tourism to Kashmir post abrogation of the Article 370 of the Constitution of India in August 2019. Nothing could be more devastating than an attack on innocent tourists as the Kashmir Valley, known for its beauty, stands deserted by the tourists post the Pahalgam attack. The impact is not limited to tourists deserting Kashmir, the attack has somehow encouraged fresh global analysis of the conflict between India and Pakistan. New Delhi had invested hugely to normalise the Kashmir situation since the revocation of Article 370 in 2019. It had, to a great extent, successfully thwarted the attempts of the internationalisation of Kashmir by Pakistan and its strategic partners after the abrogation of Article 370 and internally managed to bring the violence in Kashmir to the zero level. However, the Pahalgam terrorist attack and the aftermath seem to have refreshed the marketing of the Pakistani narrative on Kashmir.
Immaterial of how smartly India erodes Pakistan’s regional and global standing, the negative impact of terrorism on the Kashmiri society is inevitable, which ultimately impacts New Delhi’s long-held position on Kashmir. As emphasised earlier, there could be efforts by Pakistan at stirring chaos in the Kashmir Valley, and terrorists could strike in a big way as and when they get an opportunity, essentially because New Delhi has unwittingly exhausted the options and Pakistan is willing to provoke India as many times as it could. Pakistan sees the escalation of confrontations with India as panacea to all its problems – its economy is under severe stress and its sensitive border regions of Balochistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa are dogged by separatist and religious violence.
As for the global image, it looks like Pakistan calculates on the benefits of its state policy of exporting terrorism to its neighbouring countries while downplaying its fallout on the Pakistan society. For Pakistan, it is more important to stay relevant in the international discourse, even if negatively. It has worked for them in Pakistan and it would work for them in the future. It is a well-conceived doctrine which keeps Pakistan going even in very unfavourable situations.
The new doctrine articulated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in response to terrorist attacks according to which, such attacks would be treated as “acts of war” and would warrant “appropriate retaliation, including military action against both the terrorists and the governments allegedly supporting them” – to my limited understanding could not stop Pakistan from supporting terrorism in Kashmir. As argued earlier, such kind of response finally culminates into diplomatic engagement and at intervention by the global players essentially for the fear of nuclear backlash. Its diplomatic fallout is that a bankrupt, disarrayed and turmoiled Pakistan is treated as equal to an economically and militarily powerful, politically stable India in the diplomatic corridors. What could be more damaging and devastating than this!
Diplomacy, the final battleground
As events unfold, diplomacy becomes the final battleground between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. India’s global outreach, sending delegations to more than 30 countries, accusing Pakistan of supporting “terrorist groups” responsible for attacks in Indian Kashmir could be a smart move in more ways than one, essentially in the backdrop of the united response from the arch political rivals and the contending political forces which could certainly have a lasting impact on the international diplomatic arena.
In whatever way, Kashmir remains the point of reference which suits the deeply entrenched geopolitical and ideological lens of Pakistan, implying that even in handing out a humiliating defeat militarily and isolating diplomatically, there is still an element of victory for Pakistan. I know this sounds bizarre but the post Pahalgam events give a fair idea as to how Pakistan has finally become a part of the discourse in the diplomatic arena.
That said, New Delhi has to devise a very careful strategy, rather a multipronged one, ensuring that Pakistan is not leveraged in any manner. The strategy has to be long-term based on careful examination of the minutest observations. As emphasised, the counter-terrorism capabilities should match the challenges posed by the current deadly phase of terrorism. As said earlier the new breed of terrorism cannot be challenged by conventional means. Because the targets are multiple and diverse, there is a clear advantage for terrorists. What is important for a measured response is the threat assessment by the security and intelligence agencies. There is an inherent lacuna in our counter-terrorism strategy.
Bear in mind, terrorists, as discussed, have a range of choices in choosing their target. The Pahalgam attack on tourists does not necessarily mean that tourists could be targetted again. The terrorists achieved what they had anticipated. Now they could try something different. The security and intelligence agencies, on the other hand, are exhausting their energies in ensuring safety and security of whatever little of tourism is there. The focus should be on what could be the next move and what could be the next target.
In our earlier edition, we had emphasised the pre-incident threat assessment which could actually form the bedrock of any counter-terrorism strategy. And assessment cannot always be based on intelligence inputs. The right understanding of the terrorist methodology could guide you in the right direction. Rather than getting carried away by one incident, understand the tactics for effective and timely deterrence. There are certain things which could be discussed privately in order to have some idea for an effective counter-terrorism strategy.
Make the most of peace times
As for shaping the international opinion, the fundamental rule should be: peace times are generally more conducive for diplomatic efforts and shaping public opinion. The fact is that adversaries too have equal opportunities for diplomatic moves and opinion-shaping during times of conflict, albeit with different priorities and approaches.
In peace-time, diplomatic efforts can be more focussed on long-term goals and building relationships. This allows for more in-depth negotiations and the gradual cultivation of trust between nations. Public opinion can also be more easily influenced in peace-time without any stiff opposition. However, during conflict, diplomacy takes on a more urgent, reactive nature which only fructifies the opinion for de-escalation, ceasefire negotiations, or brokering peace agreements.
Internal politics and political compulsions should not, in any manner, define the strategic interests and diplomatic overtures. Peace-times are the best times to create friends and strategic partners while during conflicts, there is only scope for managing the partners. Let that sink in that peace-time provides more favourable conditions for building long-term and all-weather relationships, while, during active conflicts, you need immediate messages for rallying support of the international community.
