Lt General (retd) DS Hooda at Idea Exchange: ‘The horrific attack on tourists, selection of place, planning… this seems a deliberate escalation by Pakistan’

Barriers at the Attari Integrated Check Post on Thursday, a day after India announced its closure. (Express photo by Rana Simranjit Singh)

Amrita Nayak Dutta: What aspect of the attack did you find most surprising?

It was surprising in terms of the selection of the target. We had been seeing some indication that Pakistan was stepping up its attempt to increase terrorist activities in J&K. We also got a sense that people who were coming in were much better trained. They were all mostly foreign terrorists. Traditionally, you haven’t seen tourists getting attacked because it’s something that really hits the local economy.

Amrita Nayak Dutta: This attack saw targeted killings based on religion. Where do you think this is coming from?

It’s not as if it’s the first time that Hindus have been targeted in J&K. The manner in which it was done, separating out Hindus and Muslims, keeping women aside, asking people to recite the Kalma — these are all deliberate actions.

On possibility of Military Action | If at all there is military force applied, it would be limited in scale and scope, while being prepared for a level of escalation and seeing how at each level of escalation you could come out on top

Amrita Nayak Dutta: If you could share some points that you think need investigation and explanation?

One, of course, is that with so many tourists in a vulnerable area, where you also now have the Amarnath Yatra coming, why was there no security force present there? It’s not possible to provide security to every tourist, but there should be some presence, kind of area domination that happens, particularly in an area where you know that you’re not able to react quickly. Then, of course, people will point out why is it that we could not get intelligence about such a large attack being planned. But, honestly, there are limitations. It’s not as if you can pick up everything that’s going to happen.

Amrita Nayak Dutta: Since the abrogation of Article 370, we’ve heard multiple times that normalcy has been restored in J&K. Does this incident contradict that notion?

In the short term, it would appear that government claims of normalcy were not correct because one indicator that the government always gave for normalcy was the large number of tourists arriving in the state. Now with bookings being cancelled, tourists leaving in large numbers, it would appear in the short term that what the government was claiming was not correct. But we also have to take a slightly nuanced view. The fact is that overall violence levels were reducing. That did not mean that there was no terrorist at all.

Although we’ve had this one horrific incident, doesn’t mean that J&K is going to suddenly descend into lawlessness and everything that had happened has got completely overturned. We also have to be careful not to reinforce the terrorist narrative and say, oh, everything is bad.

Shubhajit Roy: If you could share the decision-making process that followed the 2016 Uri terror attack till the surgical strike response took place 10 days later?

The terrorists sneaked in on September 18 and we lost 19 soldiers. That evening, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar flew in and there was a general consensus that we need to react to this. It wasn’t only that particular incident that might have been the trigger. In 2016, there was a lot going on, starting with the Pathankot attack in January, then the killing of Burhan Wani, massive protests were taking place, infiltration was happening, a lot of firing was happening on the border.

A shutdown in Srinagar to protest the terror attack. (Express photo by Shuaib Masoodi)

So, it was the series of events finally culminating in Uri, where it was decided that we need to do something strong. In my first meeting at the Army Headquarters with the Army Chief, I didn’t directly meet the political leadership but when I asked what were the instructions, I was told it was quite clear — we needed to carry out a cross-border operation, we will not be satisfied merely with cross-border firing, so there needs to be a physical attack on the camps. Based on that we started planning. We needed to do something large, and sooner rather than later. There was absolutely no interference on how many camps, how many targets, how should you do it. That was completely left to me. Thereafter, there were a series of meetings and we finalised the date. That was presented to the army chief, who then presented it to the political leadership. Zero changes were made. Once we got the go-ahead, we conducted the surgical strike.

On need for Outreach | Can we bring more people coming out and saying, terrorism is not suiting us in our day-to-day life? I have not seen such a thing in the past… candlelight marches, protests happening against what terrorists have done

Shubhajit Roy: In 2019, we had the Balakot aerial strike, which was significantly different from the 2016 ground operation. As a military planner, what do you think are the options on the table this time?

I think both options are still on the table, not exactly in the way that it was conducted last time. It isn’t as if the use of ground forces is completely ruled out. You can use it in different ways, have different kind of targets. I know the Line of Control is sort of heavily guarded, but the terrain is such that you can find vulnerable points, vulnerable targets.

You have standoff weapons where you don’t necessarily need to cross over very deep into Pakistani airspace to carry out strikes. In fact, some targets can be taken down even from your side of the LoC. There is the use of attack drones that can be made. There are different options. At this stage, the government has taken some strong steps, particularly regarding the Indus Water Treaty, but I wouldn’t completely rule out the military option.

Security personnel near the site of the Pahalgam terror attack, in Anantnag district, Jammu and Kashmir, on Wednesday. (Source: PTI Photo)

Rakesh Sinha: In a recent report on the 2021 ceasefire and the road ahead, you noted that sustaining the ceasefire would require political commitment from India and Pakistan. Do you think the ceasefire will hold after the Pahalgam provocation?

At this stage, the ceasefire is fragile. We have already seen a few incidents reported about firing that has taken place across the LoC. Additional forces have got pushed in on both sides. We are hearing about Pakistan strengthening its defences. There is going to be suspicion on both sides. Activities that could be routine could be misconstrued as preparation for something that is happening, and that could definitely lead to breaches in the ceasefire agreement.

Will the government take a decision that the ceasefire understanding does not need to be respected? In case the government says we need to also militarily take some steps apart from diplomatic steps, the ceasefire agreement could be a casualty.

Amitabh Sinha: In the 2016 surgical strike and Balakot, there was an element of surprise. This time, it seems, they are hoping for retaliatory action. How does that complicate our plans?

The reason why air power was resorted to in 2019 was because they were prepared for a ground attempt after 2016. 2016 was a real surprise for them. This time, they would be better prepared, both for a ground operation and air operation. This is going to go into consideration of planning, just in case a military option is to be exercised. The element of surprise that existed in the past is not going to be there.

On the LAC | The immediate tension has de-escalated… Does that mean everything has normalised and we can go back to the status quo of 2020? That is not going to happen in a hurry… The confidence building measures have completely broken down

Amitabh Sinha: Going forward, how do you prevent incidents like this? While making an effort towards normalisation there is some amount of scaling down of the armed presence, but every time an incident like this happens there are questions on why were the security forces not there?

This is the real dilemma for the security forces. In the past, there has been so much criticism of bunkers around Dal Lake, how the overwhelming presence of security forces puts off the tourists.

At the same time, if things happen and the security force presence is not there, there is criticism as to why were you not there, why there are vulnerable targets. It’s a challenge to find the right balance. Every time you will have an incident, it will push things back a little, but as I said, this is exactly what the terrorists want.

Security personnel near the site of the Pahalgam terror attack in Anantnag district. (Source: Reuters)

As horrific as this incident is, I think there are also some opportunities. The manner in which some of the local population has come out against terrorist activities is something that can be made use of. Can we bring more people coming out and saying, look, terrorism is not suiting us in our day-to-day life? I have not seen such a thing in the past, where you are seeing candlelight marches, protests happening against what the terrorists have done.

Divya A: In the last few years, tourism in J&K was almost becoming a metric for normalcy. Do you think we need to de-hyphenate normalcy from tourism because before opening locations to tourists there needs to be security to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.

I’m not sure the government is going to say we are going to stop getting tourists into J&K. There will be an attempt to enhance the security. As far as the metrics are concerned, I agree with you. I think we need to expand our list of metrics which will really tell us whether we are moving towards normalcy or not. The number of terrorists killed, number of tourist arrivals, these are important, but there are also other critical metrics that we don’t look at. What is the level of support? How much intelligence are you getting? What’s the level of radicalisation, for example? What steps are being taken in that regard? These are also things that we need to look at. These are often not easy to measure and therefore they are ignored.

On tourism as metric for normalcy in J&K | We need to expand our list of metrics which tell us whether we are moving towards normalcy or not. The Number of terrorists killed, tourist arrivals, these are important but there are also other critical metrics that we don’t look at

Liz Mathew: There has been overwhelming global support for India after the incident. Will that have any impact on India’s response?

There are going to be international sensitivities that are kept in mind, but as we have seen in the past, once the government takes the decision that this is what it needs to do for national interest, it just goes ahead and does it.

Jatin Anand: Realistically and tactically, what is it that India can aim to achieve? Are we looking at an offensive along the international border? How much of a challenge is Chinese investment in POK?

I don’t think they will be looking at an escalation to the extent of initiating a sort of conventional war with Pakistan across the international border. The idea would be to send out a credible message saying that if you continue with this, there will be some level of punishment that will come on you. If at all there is military force applied, it would be limited in scale and scope, while being prepared for a level of escalation and seeing how at each level of escalation you could come out on top.

As far as Chinese investments in POK are concerned, it is something that could come into play if we are contemplating massive full-scale operation to retake POK or Gilgit-Baltistan. At this stage, I don’t think the Indian military or even the political leadership is looking to initiate such a conflict. I don’t think it makes any sort of strategic sense that you are looking to start a war which is going to carry on, something like Russia-Ukraine, for the next three years. It’s not as if POK and Gilgit-Baltistan can be taken in a week.

Amit Shah at the attack site near Pahalgam on Wednesday. (Source: PTI)

Ritika Chopra: What could have led to the weakening of the intelligence network, especially among the Gujjar Bakarwals?

When the security situation starts improving, the need for outreach, meeting people, weakens a little. Some of us who were there during Op Sarpvinash and served there later, know the assistance provided by the Gujjar Bakarwal community, the enormous help they gave in terms of intelligence. As time passes, young officers come and they tend to lose this. There was also, I think, some anguish among the Gujjar Bakarwal community on the issue of reservation to the Paharis. So, sometimes, some political steps taken also have an impact.

Shalini Langer: What are the political challenges for the government given the nature of this attack with a clearly religious angle?

There is much more to this attack than merely looking at the internal security situation or the internal situation in J&K. But I am quite firm in my belief on the need for greater outreach to the local public, greater outreach to the local political parties. We often say these are parties with soft separatist tendencies, which maybe or may not be true, but the fact is that they command popular support. Therefore, we need to take them on board. Some very positive statements have come out from leaders of local political parties in J&K.

Security personnel near the site of the Pahalgam terror attack. (Source: PTI)

Amrita Nayak Dutta: As the military and political leadership plan the next step, is there a note of caution you would offer?

The note of caution always is that if military force is contemplated, a plan should be such that they succeed. We should not get over ambitious in our military planning. Look at areas where there’s 100 per cent success. Second, we need to plan for escalation. To assume that Pakistan is not going to react, they will do nothing, is a fallacy. We have to look at all instruments of national power we have and see how we can use them effectively, responsibly.

Amrita Nayak Dutta: How do you see things on the LAC, where patrolling has resumed in many friction points?

The immediate tension has de-escalated because when you have groups in very close contact with each other, there’s always this problem that something could happen. If you have patrolling arrangements or what we call buffer zones, the likelihood of two patrols clashing with each other reduces, so in that sense the tension has de-escalated. Does that mean everything else has now normalised and we can go back to the status quo of 2020? That is not going to happen in a hurry. Confidence building measures that kept peace between the two countries, between the two militaries, for so many years, those confidence building measures have completely broken down. We will need to see how to reinforce. The additional forces that had gone into that area have not yet returned. The army chief has made a statement that we are not going to de-induct those additional forces. Suspicion is there as to what the two sides are doing. It will take a long time to heal, but the rigid tensions have certainly calmed down.