Introspecting counter-terrorism after
Operation Sindoor
In the focus on India’s foreign policy and military force what is being
missing out are the aspects that concern the internalisation of terrorism in
Jammu and Kashmir
GS 2: India and its Neighbourhood, Groupings & Agreements Involving
India and/or Affecting India's Interests
GS 3: Various Security Forces & Agencies & Their Mandate, Security
Challenges & their Management in Border Areas, Terrorism in Hinterland &
Border Areas
The Pahalgam terror strike, on April 22, perpetrated by Pakistan proxies, and India’s retribution
through Operation Sindoor, on May 7, have fundamentally altered the security landscape of the
region. While Operation Sindoor represents an undeniable tactical and operational success, its
strategic efficacy in diminishing the long-term terrorist threat remains uncertain. At present, the
discourses across all the forums in the country, unfortunately centre exclusively on matters of
foreign policy and the external application of military force. The aspects concerning
internalisation of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) have often been given a miss, thereby
missing the wood for the trees. Here, it is crucial to understand that in the overall context, it has
always been about winning Kashmir rather than defeating Pakistan.
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. ------→ The dual roots of terrorism in J&K — Pakistan's external sponsorship and
internal socio-political grievances. It underscores that military solutions alone are insufficient
without addressing local issues of identity and marginalisation. The reduction in fatalities shows
progress, but also signals the need for sustained, multifaceted strategies. India's success
depends on balancing security measures with political and social outreach.
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). ----→ The passage highlights a worrying shift in Jammu's security
landscape, with local terrorist support resurging despite overall decline in local militant
numbers. Gaps in troop deployment and weakened HUMINT have emboldened new terror
groups. The kill ratio favouring terrorists signals operational concerns. Urgent strengthening of
intelligence and local engagement is essential to regain control.
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. ---→ The
unprecedented public support in J&K after the Pahalgam massacre offers a rare chance for trust-
building and long-term stability. Overreliance on force risks sidelining deeper issues rooted in
internal grievances. Operation Sindoor's success must be balanced with political, economic, and
social strategies. True deterrence lies in a people-centric, multidimensional approach anchored
in national resolve.
Brief about the article:
The Pahalgam terror strike and India’s retaliatory Operation Sindoor have altered the regional
security landscape, but questions remain about the long-term effectiveness of military
responses alone. While Pakistan remains a key instigator of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir
(J&K), internal factors such as marginalisation, political disenfranchisement, and identity crises
have also fuelled unrest. Despite military successes and declining fatalities, external strikes like
Balakot and Sindoor have not deterred Pakistan, which continues to celebrate its narrative of
resistance. Meanwhile, a new surge of local terrorist support and intelligence gaps, especially in
the Jammu region, are causes for concern. Importantly, public outrage against the Pahalgam
attack presents a strategic opportunity to build trust among locals. Analysts warn against over-
reliance on external force, urging a shift toward addressing internal vulnerabilities. Effective
deterrence requires not only kinetic operations but also political engagement, economic
progress, and social inclusion. A comprehensive, people-centric strategy is essential to counter
terrorism sustainably. National resolve must underpin a nuanced, multidimensional response to
the enduring threat.
Permanent damage
Trump administration’s attack on Harvard will have long-term impact
GS 2: Bilateral Groupings & Agreements, Effect of Policies & Politics of
Countries on India's Interests, Indian Diaspora, Groupings & Agreements
Involving India and/or Affecting India's Interests
Civic life in the United States stands on multiple, strong and independent institutions in different
fields. These institutions, whether constitutionality mandated or not, have a continuity, life and
standing of their own, beyond particular individuals. They enable diversity and pluralism, and
provide protection against arbitrary decisions by those in power. Ironically enough, U.S.
President Donald Trump is intent on damaging its oldest and wealthiest educational institution
— Harvard.
After harassing the institution with investigations, orders to turn over records, and freezing
funds and grants running to hundreds of millions of dollars, the U.S. government has said that
Harvard cannot enrol foreign students in 2025-26. Some 6,800 international students, including
more than 750 from India, constitute more than 27% of its current student strength. They will
have to transfer to other institutions within the U.S. or leave, as per the government, which
does not want any new international student there in 2025-26 either. The U.S. government has
said that the student visa programme is a privilege that it has granted and Harvard “relies
heavily” on foreign students to “build and maintain their substantial endowment”, which is said
to run to over $55 billion. And it sees foreign student visas and tax-exempt status as weapons in
its arsenal against Harvard. -----→ The U.S. government's ban on foreign student enrolment at
Harvard for 2025-26 threatens the academic futures of over 6,800 international students,
including 750+ from India. This move weaponises student visas and tax exemptions to target a
premier institution. It undermines the global character of American education and damages U.S.
soft power. The action reflects deeper political motives that risk long-term harm to democratic
and academic values.
Across the world, the authoritarian’s playbook for pluralistic societies is to identify an enemy
against whom a campaign is unleashed based on real and imagined grievances. The campaign
keeps the “enemy” in a state of disarray, even turmoil, with long-term damage and a chilling
effect. Though sullied by unsavoury links, from the Salem witch trials to Enron, Harvard attracts
some of the brightest talent from across the world and trains them for leadership roles in their
chosen fields. It represents liberalism and knowledge creation that advances globalisation. Mr.
Trump’s working and middle class support base looks at Harvard as one among elitist vehicles of
globalisation that have excluded them while promoting affirmative action for minorities,
especially African-Americans. While lineage and family background of prospective students are
a factor for Harvard, an extensive scholarship programme seeks to balance that. Harvard has
said that it will go to court against the government’s move just as it sued the Trump
administration for freezing government funds. While the courts may well stay the ban, the
damage has been done not just to Harvard but also to the image of American higher education
and democratic principles. It is damage that cannot be easily remedied. ----→ Targeting Harvard
fits a broader authoritarian tactic of undermining pluralistic institutions by framing them as
elitist enemies. The move damages the credibility of U.S. higher education and liberal
democratic ideals. Harvard’s global academic stature and commitment to diversity are at stake.
Even if reversed by courts, the long-term reputational harm is significant and enduring.
Brief about the article:
The Trump administration’s move to block Harvard from enrolling foreign students in 2025-26
marks a serious blow to U.S. civic and educational institutions. Over 27% of Harvard's students
are international, including many from India, who now face expulsion or transfer. This attack is
part of a broader authoritarian playbook that targets liberal, pluralistic institutions seen as elite.
The administration frames student visas and tax exemptions as leverage against Harvard,
accusing it of profiting from globalisation. Harvard, symbolic of liberal values and academic
excellence, plans to challenge the decision legally. Regardless of court outcomes, the damage to
Harvard’s reputation, U.S. higher education, and democratic norms is significant and lasting.
