The security situation in Jammu and Kashmir continues to be volatile as militancy rears its head periodically with sporadic but targeted strikes aimed at exposing official claims of peace and normalcy. Recently, terrorists killed a police officer in Anantnag, followed by two migrant workers in Kulgam district over the next few days. The government responded not only with the expected tightening of security measures but also with a severe crackdown, including arresting pro-militancy protesters. Within a couple of days of the killing of the head constable on duty, the homes belonging to families of two known militants were razed to the ground.
The choice of targets points to a change in the tactics of terrorists. Besides the usual targeting of police and security forces, they are now targeting migrant workers to possibly trigger an exodus that could disrupt economic activity. Moreover, sporadic attacks attract the inevitable large-scale security crackdown that impacts the wider population, resulting in a reinforcement of anti-State resentment and further alienation.
The political response has been appropriate, with Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah strongly condemning the attacks. While the former asserted that the killings will not go unpunished, the latter, as an elected political leader, expressed concern over mass detentions. This difference in nuance and emphasis reflects the complexity of the situation in the troubled region and a divergence in approach between the security establishment and political leadership.
There is a certain eagerness in New Delhi to maintain and claim the return of peace and stability since the 2019 abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganisation of the state. The Centre’s narrative has been that bomb blasts, stone-pelting, and terrorism are things of the past, and that the government has ushered in an era of peace and development. Through a series of development-oriented initiatives, a conscious effort was made to give an impetus to economic growth, socio-political stability, and normalcy. As proof, it offers the smooth running of schools, the development of new infrastructure, and grassroots democracy in the form of 36,000 elected public representatives at the panchayat and municipality levels. The government argues that a multi-layered counter-insurgency strategy to tackle separatist violence is necessary for creating a situation for the above. Beyond official claims, there is no credible evidence from or reports by independent sources on the extent of success of the government’s two-pronged security-cum-development strategy.
The recent terrorist attacks and government crackdown are a grim reminder of the prevalence of an uneasy calm and that enduring peace continues to be elusive. Whatever benefits accrue due to government efforts get undone as local people perceive the crackdowns as collective punishment. Beyond a point and over a long period, iron-fist tactics and high-intensity counter-insurgency crackdowns hit a point of diminishing returns.
The government needs to go beyond token programmes and gestures to foster genuine integration and a strong sense of social, cultural, and emotional connection with the country. Maybe it is time for the government to ponder the need for moderation and striking a balance between prioritising security measures against militancy while pursuing a calibrated and sensitised approach in the realm of politics and community interactions to win over the populace and thus dry up support for militancy.