A series of terror attacks targeting non-locals during the recently concluded assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir has ignited public outrage and demands for action from the Modi government. Nearly a dozen individuals, including security personnel, have been killed in these attacks, which families of the victims and opponents of violence are condemning strongly. The newly elected National Conference government, led by Omar Abdullah, has issued cautious statements of condemnation, though notably refrained from holding Pakistan accountable, despite the widespread belief that Pakistan is behind these incidents, engaging in what appears to be a continued proxy war after failing to achieve its goals through conventional warfare. Omar Abdullah’s father, former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah, issued a peculiar statement saying that Pakistan should not expect them to join its ranks—remarks that have been interpreted as evasive and lacking a strong stand on cross-border terrorism. The Abdullah family’s restrained response suggests a larger underlying intent to avoid offending Pakistan, which some interpret as a signal of their political priorities. These recent attacks were allegedly facilitated by a surge of infiltration, as Pakistan-backed militants took advantage of the pre-election period when security forces were primarily occupied with safeguarding the polling process. Such incidents reveal the challenges in securing borders when priorities shift, giving militants more opportunity to enter the region undetected.
Pakistan’s renewed militant infiltration efforts coincided with the National Conference’s electoral promise to seek the restoration of Articles 370 and 35A, abrogated by the Modi government five years ago. This has apparently emboldened Pakistan’s intentions to increase violent activities in the Valley. Experts suggest that Pakistan is banking on potential moves by the Modi government to restore full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, which could result in the National Conference gaining control over law and order. This would, they argue, give Pakistan’s sympathizers within the Valley more leeway to destabilize the region as they have in the past, ultimately undermining India’s interests. With terror attacks on the rise, some analysts argue that the Modi government has ample reason to delay any move to grant full statehood back to Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court of India had recently recommended accelerating the statehood restoration process, a proposal the Modi government might now reconsider in light of escalating tensions. The Centre could feasibly deny the National Conference’s demand for statehood by citing recent attacks as a basis for continuing central oversight. Such a decision would likely be perceived as a cautious move to prevent the Valley from regressing to the days of frequent bomb blasts, attacks on army convoys, and stone-pelting incidents from misled youth. The significant strides made in stabilizing the region post-abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A, enabling a measure of normalcy, are at risk of being undone if the National Conference and Congress regain control.
Under the Modi government, India has demonstrated a strong commitment to addressing security threats posed by both Pakistan and China. This approach has yielded notable successes, including surgical strikes on terror bases in Pakistan and decisive actions against Chinese aggression along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh. These efforts not only limited Pakistan-backed violence but also pushed China toward a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to reduce tensions and facilitate troop disengagement in the Ladakh region. Given this track record, there is widespread concern that a reversion to National Conference-led governance in Jammu and Kashmir could lead to a renewed wave of disturbances, with potential backing from Pakistan and even tacit support from China. During recent TV debates, some of India’s war veterans and national security experts have pointed to Israel’s model of border defense, which involves targeted strikes on terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in neighbouring countries. Many are now questioning why India should not adopt a similar proactive approach against militants in Pakistan. Some experts suggest targeting critical sites, including Pakistan’s army headquarters in Rawalpindi, as a deterrent. However, the key question remains whether the Modi government, which has increasingly taken on a role as an international peace broker, particularly in efforts to mediate conflicts involving Russia, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iran, is willing to adopt a more aggressive stance against Pakistan. In the current geopolitical landscape, India faces the delicate task of balancing national security with its ambitions as a peace-making force in the region. Nevertheless, there is a growing consensus that Pakistan’s support for terrorism cannot go unchallenged, especially as it directly threatens the stability of Jammu and Kashmir and by extension, India’s broader security. The Modi government must weigh the implications of further extending an olive branch to Jammu and Kashmir at this critical juncture. Conceding statehood could be seen as a sign of weakness, emboldening hostile forces that have, in the past, seized opportunities to sow discord within the Valley. As demands for decisive action grow louder, the Modi government’s response could set a precedent, either reinforcing India’s position against cross-border terrorism or exposing vulnerabilities that could embolden adversaries. The question remains whether India will strengthen its stance and act as assertively as it has in recent years, taking all necessary measures to protect its territorial integrity and safeguard its citizens from the continued threat of Pakistan’s proxy war.
