Introspecting counter-terrorism after Operation Sindoor
The complex reality of terrorism in J&K
It is beyond any doubt that Pakistan bears substantial accountability for the security situation in J&K, since Independence. After exploding in 1989, the security landscape was transformed from predominantly indigenous insurgency to significant participation of foreign terrorists, around the mid-1990s. Notwithstanding the foreign terrorists, a long-term analyses of patterns of terrorism reveal that local dynamics related to identity, marginalisation, repression and political disenfranchisement have played pivotal roles. These factors have given Pakistan the fuel to foment trouble. The interplay between external sponsorship and internal vulnerabilities creates a complex ecosystem of terrorism that defies simplistic military solutions, internally or externally.
Since 1989, the security forces have achieved substantial progress in J&K. As in South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) data, overall fatalities have reduced from over 4,000 lives in 2001 to 127 in 2024. This achievement stems from the consolidation of the security grid, the government's outreach to local populations and Pakistan's diminishing capacity to wage a high-intensity proxy war. This positive trajectory suggests that India's multifaceted approach has yielded tangible results, even as significant challenges remain and more needs to be done in the context.
Deterring Pakistan
Analysing terror-related fatalities in J&K over the last decade shows that kinetic actions such as surgical strikes (2016) and the Balakot aerial strike (2019) have not deterred Pakistan. SATP data show that fatalities went up to 267 in 2016 from 175 in 2015 and continued to rise through 2019. Even after the Kargil victory (1999), terror indices in the region shot up to an all time high. In Operation Sindoor, although our military actions ascended several notches above the surgical strikes or Balakot, these may still not deter Pakistan.
The government of Pakistan and the Pakistani people claim that they won the 100 hours war, from May 7 to 10. Pakistan's General Asim Munir has been elevated to the rank of Field Marshal and according to Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani political scientist, military nationalism has been revived in Pakistan. Deterring Pakistan in the present circumstances seems ambitious.
The participation of local terrorists in J&K, at present, is very low in contrast to the Burhan Wani days. Even though foreign terrorists are now technologically savvy and are relatively less dependent on local terrorists, the role played by local terrorists cannot be underestimated. Amid heightened security concerns following the Pahalgam attack, intelligence agencies have identified scores of local terrorists with links to their foreign counterparts.
The voids in the security grid in the Jammu region, caused by troops being moved to Galwan, were exploited by terrorist cadres in new groups such as The Resistance Front, the People's Anti-Fascist Front, and the Kashmir Tigers, to name a few. The deteriorating security situation in the Jammu region has been marked by a kill ratio that favours the terrorists. What is worrying is the prevalent degree of local support for the terrorists. Human intelligence, or HUMINT, seems to have dried up, which explains the sustenance of terrorists (this includes the perpetrators of Pahalgam, who continue to be at large).
Beyond kinetic operations
The bipartisan support of the local population in J&K against the Pahalgam massacre was spontaneous and unprecedented. Such a swell in support presents us with a strategic opportunity that must be consolidated rather than squandered through counterproductive measures such as demolishing the houses of alleged terrorists or mass arrests.
While the externalisation of terrorism through high-impact, war-like response is necessary, the caveat here is that it may end up distracting us from the primary goal — terrorism in J&K. Expert commentary following Operation Sindoor suggests a concerning tendency to oversimplify the complex challenge of terrorism in J&K, potentially numbing policymakers to harder questions regarding terrorism and its roots in both external sponsorship and internal grievances.
Operation Sindoor has demonstrated India's growing prowess in kinetic non-contact warfare, but this must be complemented by non-kinetic tools to establish a more effective deterrent against Pakistan. Most critical is to contextualise the multidimensional approach to the internal dynamics, where the fundamental principle of 'people as the centre of gravity' is the driving force. Sustained political engagement, economic development and social integration, complemented by security-centric measures, can complete the picture. Deterrence can materialise only through an in-depth approach that is backed by our national resolve.
Shashank Ranjan is a retired Indian Army colonel with substantial experience of serving in a counter-terrorism environment. He currently teaches at the O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonepat, Haryana
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Sent to Pakistan in Pahalgam aftermath, 63-year-old set to return to family in Jammu as Centre makes an exception
Three months after revoking all short-duration visas issued to Pakistani nationals and deporting nearly 60 individuals to the neighbouring country, the Government of India has decided to issue a visitor's visa to 63-year-old Rakshanda Rashid, the wife of a retired government official, so that she can return from across the border and rejoin her family in Jammu and Kashmir. The woman, a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, was deported to Pakistan on April 29 via the Atari-Wagah border in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack. Her husband, Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed, and four grown-up children continue to stay in J&K since they are Indian nationals. The matter came up in the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on July 30, with the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, saying that 'after much deliberations and considering the peculiarity of facts and unusual factual position obtaining in the mater, an in-principle decision is taken by the authority to grant a visitor's visa to the respondent'. 'Thereafter, she may even, if so advised, pursue the two applications that are purportedly moved by her and pending with the respective authority as regards acquiring Indian citizenship as also the long-term visa,'' he said. Mehta had hinted on July 22 that there could be a reconsideration at the Centre's level, as he had requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore if the respondent could be helped in any manner. In response to Mehta's statement before the Bench, advocates Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, the counsel for the respondent, submitted that she is agreeable to the course suggested by the Solicitor General of India. 'In principle decision taken by the authorities centred upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case shall not constitute a precedent in any manner,' the Bench said. As per court records, Rakshanda, who lived in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a visitor's visa for 14 days to visit Jammu, but continued to stay owing to a long-term visa (LTV) granted by the authorities on a year-to-year basis. During her stay, she married an Indian national. Her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she applied for an extension on January 4, which was not granted. Following the Pahalgam attack, the competent authority issued an order on April 25, revoking all existing valid visas with immediate effect. On April 28, Rakshanda was served with a Leave India Notice by the Criminal Investigation Department (Special Branch Jammu). She approached the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court vide a writ petition and prayed for a stay of the order. However, she was issued an exit permit and was escorted to the Attari-Wagah Border, Amritsar, by the authorities. She crossed over to Pakistan on April 29 at 4:30 pm. On June 6, Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to 'retrieve' Rakshanda. While passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, 'This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having LTV status at relevant point of time which per-se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, still she came to be forced out.' 'Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life,' observed Justice Bharti, who also referred to the statement of Rakshanda's husband Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed that 'his wife has no one in Pakistan for her care and custody, particularly when she is suffering from multiple ailments and that her health and life is at risk with each passing day and (she is) left to fend for herself as abandoned'. There are occasions when 'a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time', the judge observed. 'Therefore, this court is coming up with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to bring back the petitioner from her deportation.' Speaking to The Indian Express earlier, her husband had said that the children were worried sick about Rakshanda. According to him, though she had taken Rs 50,000 in Indian currency, she was running short of money to sustain, as a tray of eggs apparently cost Rs 600 and 1 kg atta cost Rs 250 in Pakistan.

Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
'Trump Cannot Dictate': Putin & His Top Ally Unite Against U.S. Over Ukraine Ultimatum
Praniti Shinde Refuses to Apologise for 'Tamasha' Remark on Op Sindoor After PM Modi Takes Dig Congress MP Praniti Shinde's 'Tamasha' comment on Operation Sindoor sparked outrage across party lines, but she's not backing down. Even as PM Modi condemned her remarks as an insult to the 26 lives lost in the Pahalgam terror attack, Shinde doubled down: 'We'll apologise 1000 times to the victims' families, but never to the BJP's andh-bhakts and trolls.' Shinde further questioned the lack of transparency in Operation Sindoor, asking how many terrorists were neutralised, whether jets were lost, and what India truly gained. The BJP called her stand disrespectful to the armed forces. #operationsindoor #pranitishinde #tamasharemark #congressvspm #pmmodi #pahalgamattack #loksabhadebate #modivscongress #modivspranitishinde #andhbhakts #bjpcongressclash #indianpolitics #breakingnews #trending #mediaoptics #nationalsecurity #operationmahadev #modispeech #bjpvscongress #parliamentdrama #expungedremark #toi #toibharat #bharat #trending #breakingnews #indianews 9.8K views | 2 days ago


The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
House of wars: on Parliament, Operation Sindoor discussion
The government and the Opposition crossed swords in Parliament during a discussion on Operation Sindoor this week. There was unanimity in praising India's armed forces, but there was little common ground beyond that. Operation Sindoor was India's military response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. The elimination of three terrorists behind the attack, just before the parliamentary debate, helped the government's case. It told Parliament that these terrorists were Lashkar-e-Taiba members from Pakistan. The Narendra Modi government's strident approach seeks to change the behaviour of Pakistan and reassure its domestic audience. The success of this approach is debatable and the Opposition sought to put the government on the spot on both counts. A demonstrated willingness to use force against Pakistan in the event of a terrorism incident is a definitive turn in India's strategy, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) takes pride in that. But there is no evidence yet that it is working though there has been chest thumping around it by the ruling party. The discussion in Parliament barely addressed the implications of this approach, which is being touted as the new normal. The Opposition and the government agreed on the need to punish Pakistan, and also disagreed on who would do it better. The government claimed success in meeting its objectives of launching a military operation and denied that it had acted under pressure in ending the war. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded a pointed response to repeated claims by U.S. President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire but the Prime Minister evaded a direct response on it. The government contradicts itself when it says that the operation was a success, and that it is continuing. It is also exasperating to hear a party that is now in its eleventh year of uninterrupted power, blame people who passed away decades ago for any challenge that India faces now. There was little self-reflection regarding the lapses that led to the terrorism incident, and whether and how the government plans to address them. The government had sent joint teams including several MPs from the Opposition abroad to garner support for India in the aftermath of the operation, but that sign of statesmanship was a short-lived aberration, as it turns out. The world is changing rapidly and India's capacity to navigate those changes will be largely determined by its own character. Questioning the patriotism of political opponents is an easy route to take to evade tough questions, but the BJP must realise that such an approach has diminishing returns.