India’s approach to counter-terrorism has changed drastically over the years, especially since the emergence of cross-border terrorism. As of 2023, terrorism-related deaths in the country have fallen to 127 — a stark contrast to previous years and a success story of its own. This strategic move follows a pattern of high-profile attacks. The most gruesome attack came in September 2016, when terrorists from the Pakistan-based group Jaish-e-Mohamed (JeM) slaughtered 19 Indian soldiers at an army brigade headquarters in Uri.
In the long run, India suffered a high mark of over 4,000 terrorism-related deaths per year in 2001. In recent years, though, this number has sharply dropped to 100-200 deaths annually. Terrorism prevention policies enacted by the government to prevent terrorist attacks across the border played a part in the decline. These policies serve to dilute the paradoxical and multifaceted dynamics of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.
A Shift in Policy
Prior to 2014, India largely refrained from striking back militarily. Rather than retaliating militarily, the country most often opted for diplomatic responses in the wake of terrorist attacks. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, the Indian government has adopted a much tougher approach to cross-border terrorism. This new doctrine involved surgical strikes against the terrorist camps operating in Pakistan-administered areas.
After the Uri attack, India carried out operations in Balakot, Pakistan, hitting JeM’s largest training camp. They further asserted that they had killed three times as many terrorists than the initial targeted kill count of terrorists and terrorist trainers. This claim was often met with incredulity from certain quarters, particularly when Pakistan began publicly announcing civilian casualties from these strikes. Pakistan has responded by alleging that 31 civilians were killed in the Indian airstrikes, a charge that India Monday strongly rebutted.
Dr. Ajai Sahni, a leading national security specialist, notes a tectonic re-orientation in India’s response. Most importantly, he ties this internal change to the growing international context in the aftermath of 9/11. He stated, “The reason for that is the change in the international environment after 9/11.” This environment has pushed countries to adopt a harder line on terrorism. Concurrently, it has begun to shape India’s decision calculus about the use of force in its pursuit of national security.
The Impact of Military Engagement
In recent years, the risk of military engagement between India and Pakistan has increased. This further escalation includes noteworthy firsts in drone warfare and aerial dogfights. In a dramatic example, Pakistan conducted air strikes against India. These Indian Air Force (IAF) strikes led to the capture of an Indian pilot. This latest escalation is a sobering reminder of how extreme relations between the two countries have become, especially with regards to cross-border terrorism.
India’s military response, beyond punishing the current attackers, is geared towards dissuading Pakistan-based terrorist factions from executing future strikes. The government’s policy focus has been on hitting “terrorist infrastructure,” as determined by Indian state officials, regularly within neighboring Pakistan. These kinds of operations are aimed not just at removing a direct and imminent threat, but at degrading the networks used to support terrorism.
This ambitious national agenda has received praise and skepticism alike within India. Advocates argue that it’s an important, symbolic blow to terrorist groups. At the same time, critics have raised alarm over the risk of civilian casualties and escalating tensions with Pakistan in the process.
Analyzing the Data
Recent data on terrorism-related fatalities in the Jammu and Kashmir region paints a more complicated picture. Even though the aggregate figures have fallen, problems remain. Terrorism’s root causes, as well as the region’s socio-political dynamics, continue to be sustained issues.
Dr. Sahni highlights a positive development stemming from this new policy: “One positive policy was that [the government] started prosecuting people associated with terrorism.” He points to a significant effort to prosecute those who provide money for terrorism and act as enablers. This change extends accountability beyond the individuals who are the direct perpetrators of acts of violence.
Nevertheless, the situation remains fraught with challenges. Despite this, the persistence of groups like JeM remains a serious threat to our national security. Masood Azhar, the head of that group, was even very arrogant in claiming. In his account Indian strikes had killed ten of his family members — children included. These types of statements only serve to further fan the flames of the victimhood narrative that continues to poison Indo-Pak relations.
