Give Me a Break – A Reset or Course Correction in the War on Terror

India was rocked by a terror attack yet again in its all too familiar territory – Kashmir. Despite the government completing 11 years of rule and ruling in its third term, despite the country covering huge ground and becoming fifth largest economy and despite all the progress made within the four walls, the country is yet to solve a major problem of decades in one of the major areas of contention. The reason – questionable policy, half-hearted attempts and peripheral treatment of a deep-rooted problem. The territory which has been ambiguously divided at the time of partition without clear demarcation has become a persistent problem for the country at the top of its head for decades, wasting lot of resources and claiming many lives. The core issue stems from both nations claiming sovereignty over the region, leading to multiple wars, cross-border tensions, and ongoing militant activity. But wait, is this allowed to continue in this day and age. Can India still live with a problem without treating it with wholehearted attempts in the age of arguably best leader in the world. For all its efforts, the violence in the valley didn’t perish but merely hidden to raise its ugly head time and again. All the government of India does is a tit for tat policy with Pakistan to treat terror which is highly insufficient and limited. The worst attack in Pahalgam on reveling tourists with valuable families and dependents is the latest addition to the reign of countless terror attacks. Give me a break, this cannot progress forever, and it is high time for a reset or course correction in policy and action on the war on terror. 

Simply, the change in the policy of the war should treat the problem at its roots. The first step, maintain extremely friendly relationship with Pakistan which treats the problem at its root. Even if not completely, Pakistan should share the progress and fortunes of India, for the nations are not two but one since historic times. Second, bring lasting peace in the region by clearly giving an acceptable territorial division for both sides. We can use the leverage a large country like India can have and give a mutually agreeable solution even if it is meant to keep the status-quo of present. But everyone should agree to the tabled decision and there shouldn’t be any cross-border firings, infiltrations etc. Third, the state of Kashmir should be integrated with India completely by sincere efforts to please the residents, public figures and politicians of the region. Roses but not guns should do this, and all the leaders of the state should feel driven to lead a good populace and not become pawns in the larger game. Once again this is heavily dependent on relationship between both countries. 

I am a staunch advocate of friendship between India and Pakistan which should be unconditional and without any broken pacts. It will be a dream and advocacy of a modern Gandhi, if he were living in the present day. A person so valuable as father of nation dreamt on it but the ordinary leaders and citizens have gone against it for decades. More so in the name of taking correct action which is brooming enmity with neighbor. If we read the mind of the great leader, Gandhi was against the division of India and Pakistan, believing that Hindus and Muslims could coexist peacefully. In January 1948, Gandhi undertook a fast unto death to demand protection for minority Muslims in India. Which modern leader has the largesse to think and act on their welfare. His fast led to a peace pledge, signed by thousands, ensuring that Muslims could live safely in Delhi. India had withheld ₹550 million (Pakistan’s share of assets post-Partition). Gandhi insisted that India release the funds, arguing that Pakistan had a rightful claim. His stance angered Hindu extremists, leading to his assassination on January 30, 1948. He went as far in supporting Muslims to bring about his own demise. But no one read his mind or acted to unite India and Pakistan for the problem would have solved then and there. We need to reignite this spirit from the father of the nation and put it in action to treat the problem at its core. Simply, Pakistan should not be a synonym to enemy but known as a dear friend to India. 

The tit for tat actions of present day, the surgical strikes, use of heavy violence as a peripheral vehicle to treat the problem offer a cosmetic relief but never look at underlying problem. Talking about the tit for tat actions, following the unfortunate terror incident of last month, India and Pakistan acted in a way to distance itself completely from each other. This will ensure there is no friendly relationship but gives fuel to brew fire of enmity. What are the actions India and Pakistan have taken. India completely banned the import of goods from Pakistan, including those transiting through third countries. India halted the Indus Waters Treaty, a historic water-sharing agreement, escalating tensions. India expelled three Pakistani military attaches, reducing Pakistan’s diplomatic presence in New Delhi. All visa services for Pakistani nationals were suspended, except for medical visas. India blocked Pakistani news websites and restricted access to Pakistan’s official media channels. India sent back all the Pakistani nationals living in the country. Pakistan banned Indian flag carriers from using its ports in response to India’s trade restrictions. The Pakistan Army conducted a missile test, seen as a provocative move amid rising tensions. The situation remains tense, with both nations escalating measures in response to the attack. These tit for tat actions are extremely naive and doesn’t serve the purpose of long-lasting peace and friendship between the countries. This precisely reads the mind of these leaders – to continue acting as enemies under the guise of doing right thing while leading everyone on wrong path. 

What are the actions this government has taken on Kashmir in the last ten years. There are a host of those. But did they work. Not much. The reason is conceptually alienating Kashmiri people and Pakistani people while treating the problem of Kashmir. Central government has maintained a dominating hegemony over the state in the past 7-8 years and oppressed the leadership of the state. India's approach to Jammu and Kashmir has undergone significant transformation under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government. The most dramatic change came with the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, but this was part of a broader strategy to address terrorism and instability in the region. On August 5, 2019, the Modi government enacted the most significant constitutional change regarding Kashmir since India's independence. Through a presidential order and subsequent parliamentary approval, the government revoked the special autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir provided under Article 370. Eliminated Article 35A, which had allowed the state to define "permanent residents" and provide them special rights. Bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature). After this move, all the Kashmiri mainstream political leaders are detained under house arrest for months altogether. Those who are watching from sidelines found it hard to understand. Like everyone, I thought all these measures would ‘fix’ the problem of terrorism and instability in the state or another problem is being worked upon. But nonetheless, the main problem has remained as it is after 6 years while some half-hearted attempts have been made. 

The reasons why the problem still remains at large despite the efforts from center: The overwhelming emphasis on military and security solutions addresses symptoms rather than underlying political grievances. The absence of sustained political dialogue with a broad spectrum of Kashmiri voices, including dissenting ones, has limited the development of lasting solutions. Changes to domicile rules and property ownership laws have heightened fears about demographic change, reinforcing narrative frames that militant groups exploit. The strategy insufficiently addresses the Pakistan factor in the Kashmir conflict, treating it primarily as a security challenge rather than a diplomatic one requiring engagement. Heavy-handed security measures and communication restrictions have deepened the trust deficit between the state and Kashmiri citizens. The detention of Kashmiri leaders remains a controversial issue, with ongoing debates about security vs. political freedom and suppression. 

As mentioned, a strategic shift toward friendship and cooperation with Pakistan could address terrorism more effectively than unilateral security measures through several mechanisms. Improved relations would create incentives for Pakistan to dismantle the infrastructure supporting cross-border terrorism, which security operations alone cannot eliminate. Normalization would undermine the ideological narrative that fuels militant recruitment, which portrays the conflict as an existential struggle against Indian control. Cooperation could lead to intelligence sharing and coordinated action against terrorist groups that threaten both countries. Trade and connectivity initiatives across the LoC would create stakeholders for peace on both sides, including in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Reduced tensions would create space for inclusive political processes within Kashmir without fears of external exploitation. 

A pathway to constructive engagement with Pakistan could include: Rebuilding downgraded diplomatic relationships and resuming dialogue processes. Expanding existing measures like cross-LoC trade and travel permits for divided families. Establishing hotlines and protocols to prevent militarized responses to terrorist provocations. Creating shared economic interests through projects benefiting communities on both sides of the LoC. Beginning with less contentious issues while building toward addressing more fundamental disagreements. 

The Modi government's Kashmir strategy, centered on the abrogation of Article 370 and intensified security measures, has produced mixed results in reducing terrorism while creating new challenges. The emphasis on unilateral security and administrative solutions, while yielding some tactical successes, has not addressed the fundamental political dimensions of the conflict or its external aspects. A more effective approach would balance necessary security measures with: Restoring full democratic processes and engaging with the full spectrum of Kashmiri political opinion. Ensuring civil liberties and minority protections to rebuild trust. Pursuing economic development based on local priorities and consultation rather than externally imposed models. Pursuing step-by-step improvement in relations with Pakistan to address the external dimension of the conflict. 

The history of the Kashmir conflict suggests that neither purely security-centric approaches nor isolated diplomatic initiatives can resolve the challenge of terrorism. Rather, a comprehensive strategy that addresses legitimate grievances, provides political voice, protects rights, promotes development, and engages with the regional dimension offers the best hope for sustainable peace. The abrogation of Article 370 has created new realities on the ground, but these must now be complemented with confidence-building measures, political processes, and regional engagement—including friendship with Pakistan—to achieve the stated goal of peace and stability in Kashmir. Lastly, we need to adopt the Gandhian way of thinking to restore good relationship with Pakistan which will weed out terrorism in its entirety from its roots. Else, we will still continue to walk but in opposite direction to the goal.