Why is militancy rising in the Jammu and Kashmir region? This is a valid concern. Journalists have asked this question to several retired generals and other analysts. All have provided different answers. Most say that this has happened only in the Jammu region, because the army has been able to thwart them in the Kashmir valley. The director general of police (DGP) of Jammu and Kashmir, R.R. Swain, provides a different explanation. He says this is due to the opposition leaders now protecting and promoting the terrorists. Officials in the home and defence ministries seem to blame low troop density and are thus moving up to two more units of the BSF and some of the army. While all have slightly different approaches on how to tackle it, there is unanimity that militancy is indeed on the increase. They really had no option to say otherwise, since the number of incidents and casualties on the side of the security forces are constantly in the news, even in the ‘godi media’.
But wait. Maybe the real picture is different from what is being projected by these lower level functionaries. Union finance minister Nirmala Sitaraman recently announced that the “security forces are taking effective and continuous action in countering terrorism. Due to the effective measures and efforts taken, the security scenario in Jammu and Kashmir has significantly improved.” She added that crucial reforms have been undertaken in 2019 which enabled path-breaking measures by the Union territory government, and that the government is maintaining law and order to ensure security while simultaneously implementing initiatives for economic and social development. Being a member of the Cabinet Committee of Security, the minister is the highest ranking official of the Government of India in the real know of the security situation. Surely, retired generals and even the DGP cannot know more than her. Further, she was making a statement in parliament – and hence had reason to be more accurate in her statements than veterans and police officers talking to the media.
These two views are not just different, they are polar opposites. They differ in two aspects. The one about the increase in numbers is the less important of the two differences. The more important one is this: What causes militancy and who is responsible for the increase or decrease in its levels? The generals seem to give too much importance to measures by the army while the DGP is content to blame opposition leaders. However, the minister seems to have got this part right when she unequivocally claims that the difference has come due to measures by the government – particularly social and economic development. She may have got the direction of the change wrong, but not the agent of change.
It is unfortunate that the minister knows exactly what affects the level of militancy but the army, senior officials and J&K’s police chief do not. Sitharaman is not formally schooled in this topic, while the army officers are. All along in their career, they have been taught that insurgency is a manifestation of the grievances of the local population. Unless the people seriously believe that this government is harming them rather than helping them, insurgency can’t prosper. And if the people so believe, the additional induction of any number of troops will not help. Not only do all veterans talking to the media know this, but most of them have also been instructors at various military academies in their career and have taught this to their students. However, when it comes to a situation outside the classroom, they seem to think totally differently. Never has a veteran pointed out publicly that this is an issue of governance, not of army efficiency or deployment.
The only honest answer they can give to the question of “What are your views on the increase in militancy?”, is, “You’re asking the wrong person.” If more honest, they can further add that the cabinet minister “has just told parliament that the situation is improving, not worsening.” Journalists, too, seem to be erring in calling veterans on their channels and asking them this question. If they had any idea of what fuels insurgency, they would be calling the lieutenant governor or some secretary to the government. At least, the journalists can inform the public that they had forwarded this question to the secretary, who refused to come on the program or provide an answer. Even that is not done since veterans are easily available to provide detailed information.
The misrepresentation of the main factor affecting the level of insurgency is neither a minor issue nor an innocent mistake. It is the most important issue affecting insurgency and is intentional. Even a minor correction in what question must be raised when militancy goes up will go a long way in finding more long-lasting solutions.
Once it is understood that insurgency is directly affected by the satisfaction of the local population, any increase in militancy will automatically result in the question, “So, why is the government not able to convince the people that it is really working for them?” That question will have to be answered by politicians and bureaucrats, and not soldiers. Unfortunately, it is the politicians and bureaucrats that set the narrative so they will never allow this. But this is the only question that matters. All others are just smokescreens.
Government functionaries don’t even use the term ‘insurgency’, preferring ‘terrorism,’ Army officers well know that terrorism is the use of terror to scare unarmed civilians as happened when militants targeted bus pilgrims. But everyone uses the terrorism term, even when militants target regular army soldiers. Calling this terrorism and not insurgency helps to divert attention away from political and governance issues, and directs them to activities of Pakistan.
Counterinsurgency operations in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have provided adequate literature to show that this is a governance issue. Armies can merely protect government officials, while they provide a healing touch to the locals. But it is the healing touch that is important, not the military operations. The US and Russia learnt at great cost that armed might can never quell insurgency, but India refuses to do so.
It is not that the army officers cannot provide any answers relating to the increase in violence. They can, and must, answer why militant actions are now resulting in more military casualties than before. That specific question will force them to clarify why their defensive measures are failing. But media persons fail to insist on an answer to that narrow question. This allows speakers to evade purely military issues. Further, everyone shies away from pointing out that this is a governance issue. All this leaves only one direction of attack – the enemy. Since he is not available on the program, the discussion is successfully concluded on the note that if only we had a more civilised enemy, all would be well.
And then the minister rocks the boat by pointing out that despite such an uncivilised enemy, all is still well. Why are people raising false alarms?
Colonel (Retd) Alok Asthana is a veteran. He is the author of the book The Red Pill on India and Indian Army 2023.
